The report - Office of Inspector General

UNCLASSIFIED
ESP-16-03
Office of Evaluations and Special Projects
May 2016
Office of the Secretary: Evaluation of
Email Records Management and
Cybersecurity Requirements
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This report is intended solely for the official use of the Department of State or the
Broadcasting Board of Governors, or any agency or organization receiving a copy directly from the Office
of Inspector General. No secondary distribution may be made, in whole or in part, outside the
Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors, by them or by other agencies or
organizations, without prior authorization by the Inspector General. Public availability of the document
will be determined by the Inspector General under the U.S. Code, 5 U.S.C. 552. Improper disclosure of this
report may result in criminal, civil, or administrative penalties.
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
May 2016
OFFICE OF EVALUATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS
Office of the Secretary: Evaluation of Email Records
Management and Cybersecurity Requirements
ESP-16-03
What OIG Evaluated
As part of ongoing efforts to respond to
requests from the current Secretary of State
and several Members of Congress, the Office
of Inspector General (OIG) reviewed records
management requirements and policies
regarding the use of non-Departmental
communications systems. The scope of this
evaluation covers the Office of the Secretary,
specifically the tenures of Secretaries of State
Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell, Condoleezza
Rice, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry.
This report (1) provides an overview of laws,
regulations, and policies related to the
management of email records; (2) assesses the
effectiveness of electronic records
management practices involving the Office of
the Secretary; (3) evaluates compliance with
records management requirements; and (4)
examines information security requirements
related to the use of non-Departmental
systems.
What OIG Recommends
OIG makes eight recommendations. They
include issuing enhanced and more frequent
guidance on the permissible use of personal
email accounts to conduct official business,
amending Departmental policies to provide
for administrative penalties for failure to
comply with records preservation and
cybersecurity requirements, and developing a
quality assurance plan to address
vulnerabilities in records management and
preservation. The Department concurred with
all of OIG’s recommendations.
What OIG Found
The Federal Records Act requires appropriate management and
preservation of Federal Government records, regardless of
physical form or characteristics, that document the organization,
functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential
transactions of an agency. For the last two decades, both
Department of State (Department) policy and Federal regulations
have explicitly stated that emails may qualify as Federal records.
As is the case throughout the Federal Government, management
weaknesses at the Department have contributed to the loss or
removal of email records, particularly records created by the
Office of the Secretary. These weaknesses include a limited ability
to retrieve email records, inaccessibility of electronic files, failure
to comply with requirements for departing employees, and a
general lack of oversight.
OIG’s ability to evaluate the Office of the Secretary’s compliance
with policies regarding records preservation and use of nonDepartmental communications systems was, at times, hampered
by these weaknesses. However, based on its review of records,
questionnaires, and interviews, OIG determined that email usage
and preservation practices varied across the tenures of the five
most recent Secretaries and that, accordingly, compliance with
statutory, regulatory, and internal requirements varied as well.
OIG also examined Department cybersecurity regulations and
policies that apply to the use of non-Departmental systems to
conduct official business. Although there were few such
requirements 20 years ago, over time the Department has
implemented numerous policies directing the use of authorized
systems for day-to-day operations. In assessing these policies,
OIG examined the facts and circumstances surrounding three
cases where individuals exclusively used non-Departmental
systems to conduct official business.
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
CONTENTS
OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY..........................................................................................................................1
BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................................. 2
PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS HAVE GENERALLY REMAINED CONSISTENT
AS LAWS AND POLICIES RELATED TO THE USE OF EMAILS HAVE EVOLVED .........................................4
MANAGEMENT WEAKNESSES CONTRIBUTE TO LOSS OF EMAIL RECORDS........................................ 12
STAFF EMAIL USAGE AND COMPLIANCE WITH RECORDS
MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS VARY ............................................................................................................... 19
CYBERSECURITY RISKS RESULT FROM THE USE OF NON-DEPARTMENTAL
SYSTEMS AND EMAIL ACCOUNTS ........................................................................................................................ 26
Employees Generally Must Use Department Information Systems
To Conduct Official Business ............................................................................................................................. 27
Restrictions Apply to the Use of Non-Departmental Systems............................................................... 28
The Department Has Issued Numerous Warnings About Cybersecurity Risks................................ 32
Three Officials Exclusively Used Non-Departmental Systems for Day-to-Day Operations......... 34
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................................ 42
RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................................ 43
APPENDIX A: RELEVANT LAWS AND POLICIES DURING THE TENURES OF THE FIVE MOST
RECENT SECRETARIES OF STATE............................................................................................................................ 47
APPENDIX B: MANAGEMENT RESPONSES......................................................................................................... 65
ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................................................... 77
OIG TEAM MEMBERS.................................................................................................................................................. 79
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY
In April 2015, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) initiated an evaluation to address concerns
identified during recent audits and inspections 1 and to respond to requests from the current
Secretary of State and several Members of Congress involving a variety of issues, including the
use of non-Departmental systems 2 to conduct official business, records preservation
requirements, and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) compliance. This report, which is the
fourth and final to document OIG’s findings in these areas, 3 addresses efforts undertaken by the
Department of State (Department) to preserve and secure electronic records and
communications involving the Office of the Secretary. Specifically, this report (1) provides an
overview of laws, regulations, and policies related to the management of email records; (2)
assesses the effectiveness of electronic records management practices involving the Office of
the Secretary; (3) evaluates staff compliance with records management requirements; and (4)
examines information security requirements related to the use of non-Departmental systems.
As part of the current evaluation, OIG reviewed laws, policies, and practices from (and, in some
cases, prior to) 1997 through the present, covering the tenures of five Secretaries: Madeleine
Albright (January 23, 1997–January 20, 2001); Colin Powell (January 20, 2001–January 26, 2005);
Condoleezza Rice (January 26, 2005–January 20, 2009); Hillary Clinton (January 21, 2009–
February 1, 2013); and John Kerry (February 1, 2013–Present).
OIG reviewed the requirements of the Federal Records Act 4 and the Federal Information Security
Management Act (FISMA) 5 and related regulations; circulars and directives issued by the
President, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST), and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB); applicable
1
OIG has identified the following issues: inconsistencies across the Department in identifying and preserving records,
hacking incidents and other issues affecting the security of Department electronic communication, delays and other
processing problems related to FOIA requests, and concerns about an Ambassador’s use of private email to conduct
official business. See OIG, Review of State Messaging and Archive Retrieval Toolset and Record Email (ISP-I-15-15,
March 2015); OIG, Audit of the Department of State Information Security Program (AUD-IT-15-17, October 2014);
OIG, Management Alert: OIG Findings of Significant and Recurring Weaknesses in the Department of State
Information System Security Program (AUD-IT-14-03, November 2013); OIG, Inspection of the Bureau of
Administration, Global Information Services, Office of Information Programs and Services (ISP-I-12-54, September
2012); and OIG, Inspection of Embassy Nairobi, Kenya (ISP-I-12-38A, August 2012).
2
For purposes of this work, OIG uses the term “non-Departmental systems” to mean hardware and software that is
not owned, provided, monitored, or certified by the Department of State.
3
Previous reports include the following: OIG, Potential Issues Identified by the Office of the Inspector General of the
Intelligence Community Concerning the Department of State's Process for the Review of Former Secretary Clinton's
Emails under the Freedom of Information Act (ESP-15-04, July 2015), OIG, Evaluation of the Department of State’s
FOIA Processes for Requests Involving the Office of the Secretary (ESP-16-01, January 2016), and OIG, Classified
Material Discovered in Unclassified Archival Material (ESP-16-02, March 2016).
4
44 U.S.C. chapters 21, 29, 31, and 33.
5
Pub. L. No. 107-347, title III, 116 Stat. 2946 (2002). In 2014, FISMA was replaced by the Federal Information Security
Modernization Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3551 (2014).
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
1
UNCLASSIFIED
Department directives issued in the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) and the Foreign Affairs
Handbook (FAH); 6 and guidance and policies in cables and memoranda. Appendix A summarizes
the relevant laws and policies that OIG reviewed during this evaluation.
OIG employed a number of strategies to test compliance with email records preservation
requirements applicable to each Secretary’s tenure, including (1) sending questionnaires to
current and former staff of the Office of the Secretary requesting information about email usage
and preservation practices; (2) reviewing records and public statements related to email usage;
(3) comparing stated practices against applicable laws and policies; and (4) searching available
hard-copy and electronic files to identify and analyze email records and assess staff practices.
OIG faced a number of challenges in conducting this testing, which will be discussed in greater
detail throughout the report.
OIG also interviewed dozens of former and current Department employees, including the
Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources (D-MR); the Under Secretary for Management
(M); the Assistant Secretary and other staff in the Bureau of Administration (A); and various staff
in the Office of the Secretary and its Executive Secretariat (S/ES), the Office of the Legal Adviser
(L), the Bureau of Information Resource Management (IRM), and the Bureau of Diplomatic
Security (DS). In conjunction with the interviews, OIG reviewed paper and electronic records and
documents associated with these offices. OIG also consulted with NARA officials. Finally, OIG
interviewed Secretary Kerry and former Secretaries Albright, Powell, and Rice. Through her
counsel, Secretary Clinton declined OIG’s request for an interview. 7
OIG conducted this work in accordance with quality standards for evaluations as set forth by the
Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency.
BACKGROUND
The Federal Records Act requires the head of each agency to “make and preserve records
containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies,
decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the
6
The Department articulates official guidance, including procedures and policies, on matters relating to Department
management and personnel in the Foreign Affairs Manual and Handbook. 2 FAM 1111.1 (July 3, 2013).
7
In addition to Secretary Clinton, eight former Department employees declined OIG requests for interviews: (1) the
Chief of Staff to Secretary Powell (2002-05); (2) the Counselor and Chief of Staff to Secretary Clinton (2009-13); (3) the
Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy to Secretary Clinton (2009-11) and the Director of Policy Planning (2011-13); (4) the
Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations to Secretary Clinton (2009-13); (5) the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Strategic
Communication (2009-13); (6) the Director of the S/ES Office of Information Resources Management (2008-13); (7) a
Special Advisor to the Deputy Chief Information Officer (2009-13) who provided technical support for Secretary
Clinton’s personal email system; and (8) a Senior Advisor to the Department, who supervised responses to
Congressional inquiries (2014-15). Two additional individuals did not respond to OIG interview requests: the Deputy
Secretary of State for Management and Resources (2011-13) and an individual based in New York who provided
technical support for Secretary Clinton’s personal email system but who was never employed by the Department.
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
2
UNCLASSIFIED
information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons
directly affected by the agency’s activities.” 8 Effective records management is critical for
ensuring that sufficient documentation of an agency’s business is created, that an agency can
efficiently locate and retrieve records needed in the daily performance of its mission, and that
records of historical significance are identified, preserved, and made available to the public. 9
Citing its responsibilities under the Federal Records Act, the Department sent letters in October
and November 2014 to the representatives of former Secretaries Albright, Powell, Rice, and
Clinton requesting that they make available copies of any Federal records in their possession,
such as emails sent or received on a personal email account while serving as Secretary of State.
In response, Secretary Albright’s representative advised that Secretary Albright did not use a
Department or personal email account during her tenure, and Secretary Rice’s representative
advised that Secretary Rice did not use a personal email account to conduct official business. 10
Representatives for Secretaries Powell and Clinton acknowledged that the Secretaries used
personal email accounts to conduct official business.
Secretary Powell has publicly stated that, during his tenure as Secretary, he “installed a laptop
computer on a private line” and that he used the laptop to send emails via his personal email
account to his “principal assistants, individual ambassadors, and foreign minister colleagues.” 11
Secretary Powell's representative advised the Department in 2015 that he did not retain those
emails or make printed copies. 12 Secretary Powell has also publicly stated that he generally sent
emails to his staff via their State Department email addresses but that he personally does not
know whether the Department captured those emails on its servers.13
Secretary Clinton employed a personal email system to conduct business during her tenure in
the United States Senate and her 2008 Presidential campaign. She continued to use personal
email throughout her term as Secretary, relying on an account maintained on a private server,
predominantly through mobile devices. Throughout Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the server was
located in her New York residence. 14
8
44 U.S.C. § 3101. The FAM assigns these recordkeeping responsibilities to officials within the Bureau of
Administration. 1 FAM 214 (May 1, 2009); 1 FAM 214.2 (November 25, 1998); 1 FAM 216.4 (January 17, 1997).
9
GAO, National Archives and Records Administration: Oversight and Management Improvements Initiated, but More
Action Needed (GAO-11-15, October 5, 2010).
10
Letter from Margaret P. Grafeld, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Global Information Systems, Bureau of
Administration, U.S. Department of State, to Paul M. Wester, Jr., Chief Records Officer for the U.S. Government, NARA
(April 2, 2015) [hereinafter Grafeld Letter].
11
Colin Powell, It Worked For Me: In Life and Leadership 109 (2012).
12
Grafeld Letter. Secretary Powell did not provide his emails to the Department in any form.
13
ABC News, This Week Transcript: Former Secretary of State Colin Powell (March 5, 2015), available at
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-secretary-state-colin-powell/story?id=29463658.
14
A March 17, 2009 memorandum prepared by S/ES-IRM staff regarding communications equipment in the
Secretary’s New York residence identified a server located in the basement.
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
3
UNCLASSIFIED
In December 2014, in response to Department requests, Secretary Clinton produced to the
Department from her personal email account approximately 55,000 hard-copy pages,
representing approximately 30,000 emails that she believed related to official business. In a
letter to the Department, her representative stated that it was the Secretary’s practice to email
Department officials at their government email accounts on matters pertaining to the conduct
of government business. Accordingly, the representative asserted, to the extent that the
Department retained records of government email accounts, the Department already had
records of the Secretary’s email preserved within its recordkeeping systems.15
PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS HAVE GENERALLY REMAINED
CONSISTENT AS LAWS AND POLICIES RELATED TO THE USE OF
EMAILS HAVE EVOLVED
The requirement to manage and preserve emails containing Federal records has remained
consistent since at least 1995, though specific policies and guidance related to retention
methods have evolved over time. In general, the Federal Records Act requires appropriate
management, including preservation, of records containing adequate and proper documentation of
the “organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the
agency.” 16 Although emails were not explicitly mentioned in the Federal Records Act or FAM until
the mid-1990s, the law has stated since 1943 that a document can constitute a record “regardless of
physical form or characteristics.” 17
NARA promulgates regulations providing guidance to agencies on implementation of the Federal
Records Act and recordkeeping obligations more generally. 18 Since 1990, the regulations issued by
NARA have explained that the medium of the record may be “paper, film, disk, or other physical type
or form” and that the method of recording may be “manual, mechanical, photographic, electronic, or
any other combination of these or other technologies.” 19 These regulations also have stated that a
record can be made “by agency personnel in the course of their official duties, regardless of the
method(s) or the medium involved.” 20 See Appendix A for a compilation of preservation laws
and policies that were in effect during the tenures of each Secretary, from Secretary Albright
through Secretary Kerry. Figure 1 shows the evolution of management and preservation
requirements related to emails containing Federal records.
15
Letter from Cheryl Mills, cdmills Group, to Patrick F. Kennedy, Under Secretary of State for Management (December
5, 2014).
16
44 U.S.C. § 3101.
17
H.R. 2943, Records Disposal Act of 1943, 57 Stat. 380 (July 7, 1943).
18
44 U.S.C. § 2904.
19
36 C.F.R. § 1222.12(b)(2) (1990).
20
36 C.F.R. § 1222.12(b)(3) (1990).
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
4
UNCLASSIFIED
Figure 1: Timeline of Selected Records Management Requirements and Policies
Federal Records Act requ ires mangement
of records documenting an agency's:
• organization
• functions
· policies
• decisions
• procedures
• essential transactions
Requi rement includes safeguarding against
removal or loss of records.
CFR amended to confirm that an
email may be a record and agencies using
external email systems must take steps to ensure
these emai ls are preserved.
FAM amended to require that email records,
including externa l ones, must be preserved in the
Department's custody and that departing
employees must certify surrender of all official
documents.
1997-2001 Madeleine Albright
1997
2001-2005 Colin Powell
S/ES memo to all Assistant Secretaries stat es t hat
emails may be Federal records, in which case t hey
should be printed and filed.
2004
2005-2009 Condoleezza Rice
2005
NARA bulletin requires that records must remain in~
custody of agencies and employees must ensure
t:8J
that they are incorporated into recordkeeping
systems, especially those generated on personal
computers.
S/ES memo reminds departing officials to
incorporate all record material into the
Department 's files and not to remove any
documentary materials- personal or official,
written or electronic-until such materials have
been reviewed by records and security officers.
2009-2013 Hillary Clinton
2009
CFR provision added: "Agencies that allow
employees to send and receive official electronic
mail messages using a system not operated by the
agency must ensure that Federal records sent or
received on such systems are preserved in the
appropriate agency record keepi ng system."
2013-Present John Kerry
2013
NARA authorizes role- based automat ic preservation
of emails.
2014
2012
Federal Records Act amended to explicitly include
electronic records and to prohibit employees from
using personal email for official business unless
they copy their official email or forward to their
official email within 20 days.
OMB and NARA require agencies to manage
email records electronically, instead of by print
and file, by December 2016.
Department directs employees generally not to
use personal email accounts for officia l business;
but if necessary to do so, employees must forward
such emai ls to their State account.
2015
Department begins automatically preserving emails
of senior officials.
Source: OIG analysis of laws and policies.
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
5
UNCLASSIFIED
Email Records Equivalent to Other Records: In 1995, NARA amended the Code of Federal
Regulations to confirm that “messages created or received on electronic mail systems may meet
the definition of record.” 21 The regulations also referenced the use of electronic communications
systems external to the Government, indicating that “agencies with access to external electronic
mail systems shall ensure that Federal records sent or received on these systems are preserved
in the appropriate recordkeeping system.” 22 A recordkeeping system is a manual or electronic
system that captures, organizes, and categorizes records to facilitate their preservation, retrieval,
use, and disposition. 23 The FAM adopted similar requirements in 1995, by providing in pertinent
part that:
all employees must be aware that some of the variety of the messages being exchanged
on email are important to the Department and must be preserved; such messages are
considered Federal records under the law. 24
The FAM also included examples of emails that could constitute Federal records, including those
providing key substantive comments on a draft action memorandum, documenting significant
Department decisions and commitments reached orally, and conveying information of value on
important Department activities. 25 The Department has frequently reminded employees of this
requirement, including through a November 2009 announcement to all employees that noted
that Federal records can be found in “any media, including email, instant messages, social
media, etc.” 26 However, the Department believes that the majority of the millions of emails sent
to and from Department employees each year are non-permanent records with no long-term
value.
In 2014, Congress amended the Federal Records Act explicitly to define Federal records to
include “information created, manipulated, communicated, or stored in digital or electronic
form.” 27
Methods of Preservation: According to NARA regulations, an agency “must ensure that
procedures, directives and other issuances … include recordkeeping requirements for records in
all media, including those records created or received on electronic mail systems.” 28 These
recordkeeping requirements include identifying specific categories of records to be maintained
21
36 C.F.R. § 1222.34(e) (1995).
22
36 C.F.R. § 1222.24(a)(4) (1995).
23
36 C.F.R. § 1220.18 (2009).
24
5 FAM 443.1(c) (October 30, 1995).
25
5 FAM 443.2(d) (October 30, 1995).
26
See, e.g., 09 STATE 120561; Department of State, Records Management Responsibilities, Announcement No.
2009_11_125, November 23, 2009.
27
Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014, Pub. L. No: 113-187, 128 Stat. 2003 (November 26,
2014) (amending 44 U.S.C. § 3301(a)).
28
36 C.F.R. § 1222.24 (October 2, 2009).
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
6
UNCLASSIFIED
by agency personnel. Such maintenance includes ensuring that complete records are filed or
otherwise identified and preserved, records can be readily found when needed, and permanent
and temporary records are physically segregated from each other (or, for electronic records,
segregable). Guidance issued by both NARA and the Department emphasize that every
employee has records management responsibilities and must make and preserve records
according to the law and Department policy. 29
At the Department, compliance with this regulation and preservation of emails that constitute
Federal records can be accomplished in one of three ways: print and file; incorporation into the
State Messaging and Archive Retrieval Toolset (SMART); or the use of the NARA-approved
Capstone program for capturing the emails of designated senior officials. Since 1995, the FAM
has instructed employees, “until technology allowing archival capabilities for long-term
electronic storage and retrieval of E-mail messages is available and installed,” emails warranting
preservation as records must be printed out and filed with related Department records. 30 NARA
regulations codified in 2009 also specified that agencies must not use an electronic mail system
to store the recordkeeping copy of electronic mail messages identified as Federal records unless
that system contains specific features. 31 However, according to the Department, its technology
has “lagged behind” this mandate.
29
5 FAM 414.8 (September 17, 2004). The prior version was located in 5 FAM 413.10 (October 30, 1995). See also,
NARA, Frequently Asked Questions about Records Management in General, available at:
http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/faqs/general.html#responsibility (January 20, 2001) (stating that “Federal
employees are responsible for making and keeping records of their work.”).
30
5 FAM 443.3 (October 30, 1995). S/ES-IRM reported to OIG that it has preserved email files numbering in the
thousands for selected senior officials dating back at least as far as Secretary Powell’s administration, although OIG
found that these files are maintained in a format that makes them almost impossible to review or use.
31
36 C.F.R. § 1236.22 (2009). These required features are specified in 36 C.F.R. § 1236.20(b) as follows:
(a) General. Agencies must use electronic or paper recordkeeping systems or a combination of those
systems, depending on their business needs, for managing their records. Transitory email may be managed
as specified in § 1236.22(c).
(b) Electronic recordkeeping. Recordkeeping functionality may be built into the electronic information
system or records can be transferred to an electronic recordkeeping repository, such as a DoD-5015.2 STDcertified product. The following functionalities are necessary for electronic recordkeeping:
(1) Declare records. Assign unique identifiers to records.
(2) Capture records. Import records from other sources, manually enter records into the system, or
link records to other systems.
(3) Organize records. Associate with an approved records schedule and disposition instruction.
(4) Maintain records security. Prevent the unauthorized access, modification, or deletion of declared
records, and ensure that appropriate audit trails are in place to track use of the records.
(5) Manage access and retrieval. Establish the appropriate rights for users to access the records and
facilitate the search and retrieval of records.
(6) Preserve records. Ensure that all records in the system are retrievable and usable for as long as
needed to conduct agency business and to meet NARA-approved dispositions. Agencies must
develop procedures to enable the migration of records and their associated metadata to new
storage media or formats in order to avoid loss due to media decay or technology obsolescence.
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
7
UNCLASSIFIED
In 2009, IRM introduced SMART throughout the Department, enabling employees to preserve a
record copy of emails through their Department email accounts without having to print and file
them. 32 However, the Office of the Secretary elected not to use SMART to preserve emails, in part
because of concerns that the system would allow overly broad access to sensitive materials. As a
result, printing and filing remained the only method by which emails could properly be preserved
within the Office of the Secretary in full compliance with existing FAM guidance.
In August 2012, OMB and NARA issued a memorandum requiring agencies to eliminate paper
recordkeeping and manage all email records in an electronic format by December 31, 2016.33
Subsequently, in August 2013, NARA published a bulletin authorizing agencies to use the
Capstone approach to manage emails based upon the sender or recipient’s role within the
agency (rather than the content of the email), which “allows for the capture of records that
should be preserved as permanent from the accounts of officials at or near the top of an agency
or an organizational subcomponent.” 34 In February 2015, S/ES began retaining the emails of
senior Department officials within its purview using the Capstone approach, a practice that was
broadened to approximately 200 senior officials across the Department in September 2015. 35
However, if an employee is not a senior official under Capstone, he or she would still be
responsible for preserving emails in an appropriate agency recordkeeping system, such as
through the use of SMART or printing and filing.
Requirements for Email Records in Personal Accounts: As previously stated, documents can
qualify as Federal records regardless of the location, method of creation, or the medium
involved. Consequently, records management requirements have always applied to emails
(7) Execute disposition. Identify and effect the transfer of permanent records to NARA based on
approved records schedules. Identify and delete temporary records that are eligible for disposal.
Apply records hold or freeze on disposition when required.
(c) Backup systems. System and file backup processes and media do not provide the appropriate
recordkeeping functionalities and must not be used as the agency electronic recordkeeping system.
32
Prior OIG reports have observed that that use of the SMART system to create record emails has varied widely across
Department offices. OIG, Review of State Messaging and Archive Retrieval Toolset and Record Email (ISP-I-15-15,
March 2015) and OIG, Inspection of the Bureau of Administration, Global Information Services, Office of Information
Programs and Services (ISP-I-12-54, September 2012).
33
OMB and NARA, Memorandum for The Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies and Independent Agencies:
Managing Government Records Directive (OMB Memorandum M-12-18) (August 24, 2012).
34
NARA, Guidance on a New Approach to Managing Email Records, Bulletin No. 2013-02 (August 29, 2013), available
at https://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/bulletins/2013/2013-02.html.
35
On January 29, 2015, the Executive Secretary notified the covered officials in the offices of the Secretary (S), the
Deputy Secretaries of State (D), the Under Secretary for Political Affairs (P), and the Counselor of the Department (C)
that on February 1, 2015, S/ES-IRM would begin permanently retaining all email activity in their State Department
accounts. This notice also stated: “You should not use your private email accounts (e.g., Gmail) for official business.”
Later in 2015, the Under Secretary for Management notified all Assistant Secretaries and equivalents and Principal
Deputies that all their email will be permanently stored and indexed beginning September 1, 2015. See Memorandum
To All Assistant Secretaries, Assistant Secretary Equivalents, And Principal Deputies: Email Retention (July 29, 2015).
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
8
UNCLASSIFIED
exchanged on personal email accounts, provided their content meets the definition of a record.
In 2004, NARA issued a bulletin noting that officials and employees “must know how to ensure
that records are incorporated into files or electronic recordkeeping systems, especially records
that were generated electronically on personal computers.” In 2009, NARA amended its
regulations explicitly to address official emails on personal accounts:
Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages
using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or
received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping
system. 36
In the 2014 amendments to the Federal Records Act, Congress added a provision prohibiting
agency employees from creating or sending a record using “a non-official electronic messaging
account” unless they copy their official electronic messaging account in the original creation or
transmission of the record or forward a complete copy of the record to their official electronic
messaging account within 20 days. 37 Shortly before the enactment of the 2014 amendments, the
Department issued an interim directive with similar requirements 38 and subsequently updated
the FAM in October 2015 as follows:
Under the Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014, employees are
prohibited from creating or sending a record using a non-official email account unless
the employee (1) copies the employee’s official email account in the original creation or
transmission, or (2) forwards a complete copy of record (including any attachments) to
the employee’s official email account not later than 20 days after the original creation or
transmission….The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration has advised that
”personal accounts should only be used in exceptional circumstances.” Therefore,
Department employees are discouraged from using private email accounts (e.g., Gmail,
AOL, Hotmail, etc.) for official business. However, in those very limited circumstances
when it becomes necessary to do so, the email messages covering official business sent
from or received in a personal account must be captured and managed in a Department
email system in a manner described above in accordance with the Presidential and
Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014. If an employee has any emails (regardless of
age) on his or her private email account(s) that have not already been forwarded to the
employee’s official email account, then such emails need to be forwarded to the
employee’s state.gov account as soon as possible. Employees are reminded that private
email accounts should not be used to transmit or receive classified information. 39
36
36 C.F.R. § 1236.22(b).
37
44 U.S.C. § 2911(a).
38
Department of State, A Message from Under Secretary for Management Patrick F. Kennedy regarding State
Department Records Responsibilities and Policy, Announcement No. 2014_10_115, October 17, 2014.
39
5 FAM 443.7 (October 23, 2015). Furthermore, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016, which became Public
Law 114-113 on December 18, 2015, requires, at Section 7077, that the Department update policies and directives
needed to comply with Federal statutes, regulations, and presidential executive orders and memoranda concerning
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
9
UNCLASSIFIED
However, forwarding to or copying an employee’s official email account alone is not sufficient to
fully meet records management requirements unless an employee’s email is being captured
under the Capstone approach. If such an email qualifies as a record, employees are still
responsible for preserving it in an appropriate agency recordkeeping system, such as through
the use of SMART or printing and filing.
Safeguards for Loss or Removal of Records: Both the Federal Records Act and NARA regulations
also focus on preventing the removal, loss, or alienation of Federal records. The Act requires the
head of each agency to establish safeguards against the removal or loss of records, including
making it known to officials and employees of the agency (1) that records in the custody of the
agency are not to be alienated or destroyed and (2) the penalties provided by law for the
unlawful removal or destruction of records. 40 Although the FAM itself does not contain any
explicit administrative penalties for removal or destruction of records, it does advise employees
that such penalties exist and cites the Federal Records Act for this assertion. 41
NARA regulations require each agency to have procedures to ensure that departing officials and
employees do not remove Federal records from agency custody.42 The Department has
implemented these requirements through various FAM and FAH provisions that prohibit
employees from removing, retiring, transferring, or destroying Department records; prohibit
departing employees from removing any records; require each departing employee to sign a
separation statement certifying that he or she has surrendered all documentation related to the
official business of the Government; and require a review of documents proposed for removal
by a departing employee. 43 For example, since 1982, the Department has given the
the preservation of all records made or received in the conduct of official business, including record emails, instant
messaging, and other online tools. The Act also required the Department to direct departing employees that their
records belong to the Federal government and to report within 30 days on the steps required to implement the
recommendations issued by OIG in the March 2015 Review of State Messaging and Archive Retrieval Toolset and
Record Email (ISP-1-15-15) and any recommendations from the OIG review of the records management practices of
the Department of State. Section 7077 also contains a prohibition from the use of certain appropriated funds to
support the use or establishment of email accounts or email servers created outside the .gov domain or not fitted for
automated records management as part of a Federal government records management program in contravention of
the Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014 and a provision for withholding $10,000,000 from the
Capital Investment Fund until the records management reports required under Section 7077 are submitted to
Congress.
40
44 U.S.C. § 3105.
41
5 FAM 413(a)(6) (September 17, 2004). NARA’s regulations interpreting the Federal Records Act refer to the criminal
penalties in 18 U.S.C. §§ 641, 2071, but do not cite to any administrative penalties. 36 C.F.R. § 1230.12.
42
36 C.F.R. § 1222.24(a)(6) (October 2, 2009).
43
5 FAM 431.5(d) (July 31, 2012); 5 FAM 432.4(d) (July 31, 2012); 5 FAM 414.7 (June 19, 2015); 12 FAM 564.4 (July 10,
2015); 5 FAH-4 H-217.2 (August 13, 2008). These are the most current versions of these provisions, but the
requirements have existed at least since 1995. See also 5 FAH-4 H-218a (April 15, 1997). For related discussions of
agency responsibilities concerning removal of agency documents by senior officials upon departure, see also GAO,
Federal Records: Removal of Agency Documents by Senior Officials Upon Leaving Office (GAO/GGD-89-91, July 1989),
and GAO, Document Removal by Agency Heads Needs Independent Oversight (GAO/GGD-91-117, August 1991).
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
10
UNCLASSIFIED
responsibility to the management section of each bureau, office, or post to ensure that every
departing employee has signed a separation statement (form DS-109) that includes the
following certification: “I have surrendered to responsible officials all unclassified documents and
papers relating to the official business of the Government acquired by me while in the employ of
the Department.” 44 Numerous Department cables and announcements have emphasized the
responsibility of every employee to sign a separation statement before she or he departs. 45
Since 2004, both the Department and NARA have issued multiple notices emphasizing the need
to preserve emails that constitute Federal records and to surrender all Federal records prior to
departing government employment. 46 These include an August 2004 memorandum from the
Executive Secretary that reminded departing officials not to remove any documentary materials,
whether personal or official and whether in written or electronic form, until such materials have
been reviewed by records and security officers. The memorandum also required departing
officials to ensure that all record material they possess is incorporated in the Department’s
official files. The Department reiterated this guidance in April, June, and October 2008. 47 S/ES
conducts annual workshops with the Agency Records Officer on records management for
departing senior officials and their staffs. Such workshops were held in February 2007,
September 2008, June 2009, April 2010, October 2011, October 2012, October 2013, October
2014, and June 2015.
44
5 FAM 417.2 (March 16, 1982); 5 FAM 413.9 (October 30, 1995); 5 FAM 414.7 (September 17, 2004).
45
See, e.g., Procedures for the Removal of Personal Papers and Non-Record Material – 5 FAM 400, 5 FAH-4,
Announcement No. 2000_01_021, January 14, 2000; Procedures for the Removal of Personal Papers and Non-Record
Material, Announcement No. 2005_02_017, February 3, 2005; 05 STATE 00018818 (February 1, 2005); 14 STATE 56010
(May 09, 2014).
46
See, e.g., NARA, Protecting Federal records and other documentary materials from unauthorized removal, Bulletin
No. 2005-03 (December 22, 2004); NARA, NARA Guidance for Implementing Section 207(e) of the E-Government Act
of 2002, Bulletin No. 2006-02 (December 15, 2005); Department of State, Records Management Procedures,
Announcement No. 2007_02_147, February 28, 2007; Department of State, Preserving Electronic Message (E-mail)
Records, Announcement No. 2009_06_090, June 17, 2009; 14 STATE 111506 (September 15, 2014); Department of
State, Departing Officials: Procedures for the Removal of Personal Papers and Non-Record Material, Announcement
No. 2008_04_089, April 17, 2008; Department of State, Reminder – Departing Officials: Procedures for the Removal of
Personal Papers and Non-Record Material, Announcement No. 2008_06_095, June 16, 2008; Department of State,
Reminder – Departing Officials: Procedures for the Removal of Personal Papers and Non-Record Material,
Announcement No. 2008_10_087, October 16, 2008 (“The willful and unlawful removal or destruction of records is
punishable by a fine or imprisonment of up to three years, or both (18 U.S.C. § 2071).”); 09 STATE 120561 (November
23, 2009); Department of State, Records Management Responsibilities, Announcement No. 2009_11_125, November
23, 2009; NARA, Continuing Agency Responsibilities for Scheduling Electronic Records, Bulletin No. 2010-02 (February
5, 2010); Department of State, A Message from Under Secretary for Management Patrick F. Kennedy regarding State
Department Records Responsibilities and Policy, Announcement No. 2014_10_115, October 17, 2014.
47
Memorandum from Karl Hoffman, Executive Secretary, to all Under Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries, Refresher
on Records Responsibilities and Review (August 9, 2004).
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
11
UNCLASSIFIED
MANAGEMENT WEAKNESSES CONTRIBUTE TO LOSS OF
EMAIL RECORDS
As discussed above, the Federal Records Act and related NARA regulations impose records
management responsibilities on both Federal agencies and individual employees. For agencies,
these responsibilities include establishing “effective controls” to manage the creation,
maintenance, use, and disposition of records in order to achieve adequate and proper
documentation of the policies and transactions of the Federal Government. 48 According to
NARA, an effective records disposition program depends on scheduling 49 all records, regardless
of location and regardless of physical form or characteristics (paper or electronic). 50 Therefore,
agencies must implement a records maintenance program so that complete records are filed or
otherwise identified and preserved, records can be readily found when needed, and permanent
and temporary records are physically segregated or are segregable from each other. 51
According to a 2010 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, most agencies do not
prioritize records management, as evidenced by lack of staff and budget resources, absence of
up-to-date policies and procedures, lack of training, and lack of accountability. 52 In its most
recent annual assessment of records management, NARA identified similar weaknesses across
the Federal Government with regard to electronic records in particular. NARA reported that 80
percent of agencies had an elevated risk for the improper management of electronic records,
reflecting serious challenges handling vast amounts of email, integrating records management
functionality into electronic systems, and adapting to the changing technological and regulatory
environments. 53
In an effort to develop solutions to its own electronic records management challenges and to
comply with NARA and OMB requirements, in 2013 the Department established the Electronic
Records Management Working Group (ERMWG). 54 The Under Secretary for Management 55
48
44 U.S.C. §§ 3101, 3102.
49
A records schedule identifies records as either temporary or permanent. All records schedules must be approved by
NARA. A records schedule provides mandatory instructions for the disposition of the records (including the transfer of
permanent records and disposal of temporary records) when they are no longer needed by the agency. As part of the
ongoing records life cycle, disposition should occur in the normal course of agency business. 44 U.S.C. §§ 3303, 3303a.
50
See http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/publications/disposition-of-federal-records/chapter-2.html
51
36 C.F.R. § 1222.34.
52
GAO, Information Management: The Challenges of Managing Electronic Records (GAO-10-838T, July 17, 2010).
53
NARA, Records Management Self-Assessment 2014 (November 6, 2015).
54
The ERMWG is chaired by the Director of the Office of Management Policy, Rightsizing and Innovation, and its
members include the Chief Information Officer (CIO) and representatives from L, IRM, and A.
55
OMB and NARA Memorandum M-12-18, Memorandum for The Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies and
Independent Agencies: Managing Government Records Directive, requires each agency to designate a Senior Agency
Official (SAO) at the Assistant Secretary level or its equivalent with “direct responsibility for ensuring the department
or agency efficiently and appropriately complies with all applicable records management statutes, regulations, and
NARA policy, and the requirements of this Directive. The SAO must be located within the organization so as to make
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
12
UNCLASSIFIED
approved recommendations submitted by the ERMWG, which included updating guidance on
preserving senior officials’ emails, developing a pilot program for the Capstone approach to
record email, and directing IRM to perform a cost-benefit analysis of upgrading SMART as
opposed to obtaining other solutions for preserving the emails of senior officials. 56
In September 2015, Secretary Kerry named a former career Senior Foreign Service Officer as the
Department’s Transparency Coordinator. The Transparency Coordinator has been tasked with
leading the Department’s efforts in conjunction with the ERMWG to meet the President’s
Managing Government Records directive, responding to OIG’s recommendations, and working
with other agencies and the private sector to explore best practices and new technologies.
While these are positive steps, OIG identified multiple email and other electronic records
management issues during the course of this evaluation. In its technical comments on this
report, the Department noted that its budget has been declining over the past years and has not
kept pace with inflation at a time when its national security mission is growing. According to the
Department, it did request additional resources for records management for fiscal year 2017, but
additional funding will still be needed to fully address its records management challenges.
Insufficient Oversight of the Recordkeeping Process: During the 20-year period covered by this
evaluation, S/ES has had day-to-day responsibility for the Secretary of State’s records
management responsibilities, and it relies upon guidance and records schedules promulgated
by the Bureau of Administration. The Bureau of Administration “plans, develops, implements,
and evaluates programs, policies, rules, regulations, practices, and procedures on behalf of the
Secretary to ensure compliance with the letter and spirit of relevant statutes, executive orders,
and guidelines.” 57 The Office of Information Programs and Services (IPS) is the component of the
Bureau specifically tasked with issuing records guidance and overseeing records management
efforts of the Department. Upon request, IPS reviews the records management practices of
Department offices. The Acting Co-Director of IPS currently serves as the Agency Records Officer
with program management responsibility for all records Department-wide throughout their life
cycle (creation, acquisition, maintenance, use, and disposition). IPS has provided briefings, in
conjunction with S/ES, to Office of the Secretary staff and has issued Department-wide notices
and cables about records retention requirements, some of which included requirements to save
email records, including records contained in personal emails. According to the FAM, the
Agency Records Officer is “responsible for seeing that the Department and all of its component
elements in the United States and abroad are in compliance with Federal records statutes and
adjustments to agency practices, personnel, and funding as may be necessary to ensure compliance and support the
business needs of the department or agency.” The Under Secretary for Management has served as the Department’s
SAO since 2012. Action Memo for the Secretary, Designating A Senior Agency Official (SAO) for Managing
Government Records (November 27, 2012).
56
ERMWG, Action Memo for Under Secretary Kennedy: Preserving Electronically Senior Officials’ Record Email
Messages (August 22, 2014).
57
5 FAM 414.3 (June 9, 2009).
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
13
UNCLASSIFIED
regulations,” 58 yet IPS has not reviewed Office of the Secretary records retention practices
during the current or past four Secretaries’ terms.
Although NARA is responsible for conducting inspections or surveys of agencies’ records and
records management programs and practices, 59 it last reviewed the Office of the Secretary’s
records retention practices in 1991–a quarter century ago. Beginning in 2009, NARA has relied
on annual records management self-assessments and periodic reports from the Department to
gauge the need to conduct formal inspections. The Department’s last two self-assessments did
not highlight any deficiencies.
Print and File Requirements Not Enforced: S/ES staff have provided numerous trainings for the
Office of the Secretary on records preservation responsibilities and the requirement to print and
file email records. However, S/ES staff told OIG that employees in the Office of the Secretary
have printed and filed such emails only sporadically. In its discussions with OIG, NARA stated
that this lack of compliance exists across the government. Although the Department is aware of
the failure to print and file, the FAM contains no explicit penalties for lack of compliance, and
the Department has never proposed discipline against an employee for failure to comply. OIG
identified one email exchange occurring shortly before Secretary Clinton joined the Department
that demonstrated a reluctance to communicate the requirement to incoming staff. In the
exchange, records officials within the Bureau of Administration wondered whether there was an
electronic method that could be used to capture the Secretary’s emails because they were “not
comfortable” advising the new administration to print and file email records.
Limited Ability To Retrieve Email Records: Even when emails are printed and filed, they are
generally not inventoried or indexed and are therefore difficult to retrieve. As an illustration,
almost 3,000 boxes, each filled with hundreds of pages of documents, would have to be
reviewed manually, on a page-by-page basis, in order to identify and review all printed and filed
emails from the Office of the Secretary since 1997. To help alleviate this problem, the Office of
the Secretary could have adopted an electronic email management system in 2009 with the
introduction of SMART. SMART allows users to designate specific emails sent or received
through the Department’s email system as record emails; other SMART users can search for and
access record emails, depending on the access controls set by the individual who originally
saved the email. However, prior OIG reports have repeatedly found that Department employees
enter relatively few of their emails into the SMART system and that compliance varies greatly
across bureaus, in part because of perceptions by Department employees that SMART is not
intuitive, is difficult to use, and has some technical problems. 60
58
5 FAM 414.2 (June 9, 2009).
59
44 U.S.C. § 2906. For an in-depth assessment of NARA’s oversight practices, see GAO, National Archives and
Records Administration: Oversight and Management Improvements Initiated, but More Action Needed (GAO-11-15,
October 2010).
60
OIG, Review of State Messaging and Archive Retrieval Toolset and Record Email (ISP-I-15-15, March 2015) and OIG,
Inspection of the Bureau of Administration, Global Information Services, Office of Information Programs and Services
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
14
UNCLASSIFIED
In 2015, the Department began permanently retaining the emails of approximately 200 senior
officials pursuant to the Capstone approach discussed previously. The Department also plans to
purchase an off-the-shelf product to electronically manage its emails in keeping with OMB’s and
NARA’s requirement that it do so by December 2016. 61 This product will be adapted to
Department requirements to include an interface that requires users to determine the record
value and sensitivity of an email with one click and an auto-tagging feature that will allow emails
to be stored according to disposition schedules. The new system will also be able to process
legacy email files, such as the Personal Storage Table (.pst) files of departed officials. 62 In
addition, the Department expects that the product will improve the Department’s ability to
perform more comprehensive email searches.
No Inventory of Archived Electronic Files: The S/ES Office of Information Resources
Management (S/ES-IRM), the unit that handles information technology for the Office of the
Secretary, reported to OIG that it has maintained electronic copies of email records for selected
senior officials dating back as far as Secretary Powell’s tenure. These records consist of
thousands of electronic files, principally saved as .pst files. During OIG’s fieldwork, S/ES-IRM did
not have an inventory of the .pst or other electronic files that consistently identified the former
email account holder. However, in early 2016, S/ES-IRM began to create a comprehensive
inventory of these files. 63
Unavailable or Inaccessible Electronic Files: When OIG requested specific .pst files, it
encountered difficulties in obtaining and accessing those files. S/ES-IRM was unable to produce
all of the .pst files OIG requested, and some of the requested files were corrupted and their
recovery required considerable resources. Some .pst files were password protected, and staff did
not know the passwords needed to open those files. Other files contained no data at all. Of the
.pst files OIG was able to review, many were incomplete in that they did not span the particular
employee’s entire term of service, were mislabeled, or were missing key files such as populated
sent or inbox folders. According to S/ES-IRM, as part of the inventory process currently
underway, it is moving all .pst files in its possession onto servers and clearly labeling them.
Failure To Transfer Email Records to IPS: All Department offices are required to retire, or transfer,
records to IPS in accordance with the Department’s records disposition schedules. 64 For records
(ISP-I-12-54, September 2012). As noted previously, the Office of the Secretary did not implement SMART in part
because of concerns the system would allow users to access highly sensitive records.
61
On November 30, 2015, the Department issued a Request for Information to determine the capabilities of the
private sector to provide and support a system to satisfy recordkeeping requirements involving emails by December
31, 2016. Department of State Email Management, Solicitation No. SAQMMA16I0008 (November 30, 2015).
62
The term “.pst” refers to the format used to store copies of email messages, calendar events, and other items within
Microsoft software.
63
According to NARA regulations, creating .pst files is not an approved method of preserving Federal records,
because .pst files do not have the required controls of an electronic records system. 36 C.F.R. § 1236.10.
64
5 FAM 433 (July 31, 2012).
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
15
UNCLASSIFIED
specific to the Office of the Secretary, the relevant schedules require transferring most records
to IPS at the end of the tenure of the Secretary.65 S/ES has regularly retired paper copies of such
records throughout the Secretaries’ terms. However, S/ES has not consistently retired electronic
email records. In April 2015, S/ES retired nine lots of electronic records containing approximately
16 gigabytes of data, consisting of emails, memoranda, travel records, and administrative
documents from the tenures of former Secretaries Powell, Rice, and Clinton. However, the only
email accounts included in this material were those of six of former Secretary Powell’s staff and
two of former Secretary Rice’s staff. No email accounts from Secretary Clinton’s staff were in the
retired material.
In addition to retiring records in accordance with disposition schedules, offices must comply
with Department policy requiring them to electronically capture the email accounts of selected
senior officials upon their departure. A January 2009 memorandum from the Under Secretary for
Management required Executive Directors and Management Officers to notify their system
administrators of the departure of Presidential and political appointees and directed the
administrators to copy the email accounts of those officials to two sets of CDs. The
memorandum instructed the office to keep one of the CDs and send the other to IPS for records
preservation. 66 The memorandum included an attachment identifying all officials who were
subject to these requirements, including 50 officials from the offices under the purview of S/ES. 67
In August 2014, the Under Secretary sent another memorandum reiterating the requirement to
electronically capture the email accounts of senior officials and broadening the list of officials
subject to the requirement. 68 The Director of S/ES-IRM told OIG that S/ES complied with this
requirement by creating .pst files covering the email accounts of the specified officials upon
their departure. However, S/ES has never sent any CDs to IPS. In its most recent self-assessments
of its records management, the Department stated that it has “established a procedure for
departing officials to have their emails sent to the Department's Records Officer for
preservation,” but it failed to note that it has not complied with that procedure for the most
senior officials in the organization. 69
Failure To Follow Department Separation Processes: As noted previously, NARA regulations
require each agency to adopt procedures to ensure that departing officials and employees do
65
The schedule for records specific to the Office of the Secretary is available at:
https://foia.state.gov/_docs/RecordsDisposition/A-01.pdf
66
Under Secretary Patrick F. Kennedy, Memorandum for All Under Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries, Executive
Directors and Post Management Officers: Preserving Electronically the Email of Senior Officials upon their Departure
(January 2009).
67
The list of officials included the Secretary, Deputy Secretaries, Counselor, Chief of Protocol, Special Assistants to the
Secretary, the Chief of Staff, and the Deputy Chief of Staff.
68
Under Secretary Patrick F. Kennedy, Memorandum: Senior Officials’ Records Management Responsibilities (August
28, 2014).
69
See, e.g., Department of State, Senior Agency Official for Records Management FY 2014 Annual Report Template
(February 5, 2015).
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
16
UNCLASSIFIED
not remove Federal records from agency custody. 70 The Department has implemented these
requirements through various FAM provisions, including one that requires every departing
employee to sign a separation statement (DS-109) certifying that he or she has surrendered all
documentation related to the official business of the Government. 71 This function is handled for
the Office of the Secretary by the Office of the S/ES Executive Director (S/ES-EX). However, S/ESEX told OIG that, as the head of the agency, the Secretary is not asked to follow the exit process.
Consequently, Secretaries Albright, Powell, Rice, and Clinton did not sign a DS-109 at the end of
their tenures.
Notwithstanding the failure to adhere to separation requirements, all departing Secretaries of
State from Secretary Albright on have followed the procedures governing the removal of
personal papers. The FAH specifies that departing officials who wish to remove any documents
must prepare an inventory of these personal papers and any non-record materials for review by
Department officials. 72 Once the reviewing official is satisfied that removal of the documents
would comply with Federal law and regulations, the reviewing official completes and signs Form
DS-1904 (Authorization for the Removal of Personal Papers and Non-Record Materials). As the
form itself notes, this process is especially important to ensure that the “the official records of
the Department” are not “diminish[ed].” S/ES officials signed DS-1904 forms after the departures
of Secretaries Albright, Powell, Rice, and Clinton. OIG reviewed the completed forms for these
four Secretaries; none listed email as proposed for removal. However, in contrast to the Form
DS-109, the DS-1904 does not impose a specific requirement to surrender documents.
Failure To Notify NARA of Loss of Records: Federal laws and regulations require an agency head
to notify NARA of any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal or loss of agency
records. 73 Although numerous senior officials emailed Secretaries Powell and Clinton on their
personal email accounts to conduct official business, the Department did not make a formal
request to the former Secretaries for the Federal records contained within these personal
accounts until October and November 2014. 74 The Department also did not promptly notify
NARA about the potential loss of records. 75 NARA officials told OIG they learned of former
70
36 C.F.R. § 1222.24 (2009).
71
12 FAM 564.4 (July 10, 2015); 5 FAM 414.7 (June 9, 2015). These are the most current versions of these provisions,
but the requirements have existed since at least 1995.
72
5 FAH-4 H-217.2 (August 13, 2008).
73
44 U.S.C. § 3106; 36 C.F.R. § 1230.14.
74
In letters to the respective representatives of Secretaries Powell and Clinton, the Department asked that, should
they “be aware or become aware in the future of a federal record, such as an email sent or received on a personal
email account while serving as Secretary of State, that a copy of this record be made available to the Department.” In
addition, the Department advised that they should “note that diverse Department records are subject to various
disposition schedules, with most Secretary of State records retained permanently.” Therefore, the Department asked
that “a record be provided to the Department if there is reason to believe that it may not otherwise be preserved in
the Department recordkeeping system.”
75
In May 2014, the Department undertook efforts to recover potential Federal records from Secretary Clinton.
Thereafter, in July 2014, senior officials met with former members of Secretary Clinton’s immediate staff, who were
then acting as Secretary Clinton’s representatives. At the meeting, her representative indicated that her practice of
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
17
UNCLASSIFIED
Secretary Clinton’s email practices through media accounts in March 2015. Immediately
thereafter, NARA requested that the Department provide a report concerning “the potential
alienation of Federal email records” created by former Secretary Clinton and actions taken to
recover such records. 76
In April 2015, the Department informed NARA of the information it obtained from the former
Secretaries concerning their email records. 77 NARA subsequently requested additional
information about how the Department implements records management requirements with
regard to senior officials. 78 NARA also requested that the Department contact the Internet
service providers (ISPs) associated with the personal accounts of Secretaries Powell and Clinton
to inquire if “it is still possible to retrieve the email records that may still be present on their
servers.” The Under Secretary for Management subsequently informed NARA that the
Department sent letters to the representatives of Powell and Clinton conveying this request.79
Well before the disclosure in April 2015, Department officials discussed in 2011 whether there
was an obligation to search personal email accounts for Federal records. 80 In 2013, this issue
arose again. Specifically, in early June 2013, Department staff participating in the review of
potential material for production to congressional committees examining the September 2012
Benghazi attack discovered emails sent by the former Policy Planning Director via his
Department email account to a personal email address associated with Secretary Clinton. In
ensuing weeks, partly as a result of the staff’s discovery, Department senior officials discussed
using a personal account was based on Secretary Powell’s similar use, but Department staff instructed Clinton’s
representatives to provide the Department with any Federal records transmitted through her personal system. On
August 22, 2014, Secretary Clinton’s former Chief of Staff and then-representative advised Department leadership that
hard copies of Secretary Clinton emails containing responsive information would be provided but that, given the
volume of emails, it would take some time to produce. Subsequently, in October 2014, the Department began making
formal, written requests to the representatives of Secretaries Albright, Powell, Rice and Clinton to produce any Federal
records maintained in personal accounts. Secretary Clinton produced emails in hard copy form in December 2014.
Thereafter, in March 2015, the Department made a similar request to four of Secretary Clinton’s immediate staff.
They produced email from their personal accounts during the summer of 2015.
76
Letter from Paul M. Wester, Jr., Chief Records Officer for the U.S. Government, NARA, to Margaret P. Grafeld,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Global Information Systems, Bureau of Administration, U.S. Department of State (March
3, 2015).
77
Grafeld Letter.
78
Letter from Paul M. Wester, Jr., Chief Records Officer for the U.S. Government, NARA, to Margaret P. Grafeld,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Global Information Systems, Bureau of Administration, U.S. Department of State (July 2,
2015).
79
Letter from Patrick F. Kennedy, Under Secretary of State for Management, to Laurence Brewer, Acting Chief Records
Officer for the U.S. Government, NARA (November 6, 2015). Secretary Clinton responded to the Department that she
has provided it with all official emails in her possession and pledged to provide any other record emails if they
become available. As of May 2016, the Department has not received a response from Secretary Powell.
80
This was prompted by a FOIA matter, in which a plaintiff inquired about a document it received showing that a staff
assistant in the Office of the Secretary had received a work-related email on her personal account from someone who
was not a Federal employee; the staff assistant had forwarded the email to her official account. This matter was
ultimately resolved without further litigation.
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
18
UNCLASSIFIED
the Department’s obligations under the Federal Records Act in the context of personal email
accounts. As discussed earlier in this report, laws and regulations did not prohibit employees
from using their personal email accounts for the conduct of official Department business.
However, email messages regarding official business sent to or from a personal email account
fell within the scope of the Federal Records Act if their contents met the Act’s definition of a
record. OIG found that the Department took no action to notify NARA of a potential loss of
records at any point in time. 81
STAFF EMAIL USAGE AND COMPLIANCE WITH RECORDS
MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS VARY
As part of this evaluation, OIG sought to examine whether staff in the Office of the Secretary
complied with relevant email records management requirements, including those associated
with the use of personal email accounts. However, OIG was unable to systematically assess the
extent to which Secretaries Albright, Powell, Rice, Clinton, and Kerry and their immediate staff
managed and preserved email records. In particular, OIG could not readily retrieve and analyze
email records, in part because of the previously discussed weaknesses in the Department’s
records management processes. Although hard-copy and electronic email records dating back
to Secretary Albright’s tenure exist, these records have never been organized or indexed. For
example, the Department could not immediately retrieve and make available for review specific
email accounts identified and requested by OIG, which led to 2- to 3-month-long delays in
obtaining the requested records. In addition, OIG was unable to reconstruct many events
because of staff turnover and current employees’ limited recollections of past events. These
problems were compounded by the fact that multiple former Department employees and other
individuals declined OIG requests for interviews, and OIG lacks the authority to compel anyone
who is not a current Department employee to submit to interviews or to answer questions.
Moreover, OIG was unable to assess the degree to which Federal records sent though personal
email accounts have been appropriately managed by Secretaries of State and their immediate
staffs. Emails sent from the personal accounts of these individuals to other Department employees
may or may not exist in the Department email accounts of the recipients, but OIG has limited
ability to determine which accounts might contain these records unless the sender of the emails
provides detailed information about the recipients. The Department currently lacks the resources
and technical means to systematically review electronic files in its possession for records.
Despite these issues, OIG discovered anecdotal examples suggesting that Department staff have
used personal email accounts to conduct official business, with wide variations among
81
The current Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources, who during the summer of 2013 served as Counselor
to the Department, told OIG that she recalled conversations with Secretary Kerry about email usage, but the
conversations focused only on Secretary Kerry’s practices. In his interview with OIG, Secretary Kerry reported that he
was not involved in any of the discussions regarding Secretary Clinton’s emails and that he first became aware of her
exclusive use of a personal email account when an aide informed him around the time the information became public.
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
19
UNCLASSIFIED
Secretaries and their immediate staff members. For instance, OIG reviewed the Department
email accounts (.pst files) of senior Department employees who served on the immediate staffs
of Secretary Powell and Secretary Rice between 2001 and 2008. Within these accounts, OIG
identified more than 90 Department employees who periodically used personal email accounts
to conduct official business, though OIG could not quantify the frequency of this use.
OIG also reviewed an S/ES-IRM report prepared in 2010 showing that more than 9,200 emails
were sent within one week from S/ES servers to 16 web-based email domains, including
gmail.com, hotmail.com, and att.net.82 S/ES-IRM told OIG that it no longer has access to the tool
used to generate this particular report. In another instance, in a June 3, 2011, email message to
Secretary Clinton with the subject line “Google email hacking and woeful state of civilian
technology,” a former Director of Policy Planning wrote: “State’s technology is so antiquated
that NO ONE uses a State-issued laptop and even high officials routinely end up using their
home email accounts to be able to get their work done quickly and effectively.”
Notwithstanding the limitations on its ability to conduct a systematic evaluation, the information
available allowed OIG to establish that email usage and compliance with statutory, regulatory,
and Department requirements varied across the past five Secretaries’ tenures. The practices of
each Secretary and their immediate staff are discussed below.
Secretary Albright (January 23, 1997 – January 20, 2001): During Secretary Albright’s tenure,
desktop unclassified email and access to the Internet were not widely available to Department
employees. OIG searched selected hard-copy records from her tenure and did not find any
evidence to indicate that Secretary Albright used either Department or personal email accounts
during that period. OIG additionally interviewed Secretary Albright and current and former
Department staff, who further confirmed that she did not use email while serving as Secretary. In
her interview with OIG, Secretary Albright noted that email use was still in its early stages when
she became Secretary, and at the time she had no familiarity with the practice.
With regard to Secretary Albright’s immediate staff, OIG did not find any emails that appeared
to be to or from personal accounts and only found a few emails from staff Department accounts
related to the Secretary’s schedule. Staff responses on OIG questionnaires also identified
minimal email usage–though two staff noted retaining emails on “Department servers.” 83 These
responses suggest staff may not have consistently complied with the preservation requirement
to print and file emails containing Federal records. 84
82
Not all of these emails may indicate the use of personal email to conduct official business. Some of these emails
could be communications with individuals outside the Department. Others could be communications by employees
on personal matters, which is permissible under the Department’s limited-use policy.
83
OIG sent 13 questionnaires to former Secretary Albright’s staff and received 8 responses, of which 2 were
anonymous. None of the respondents reported having a personal email account while employed with the
Department, and most did not acknowledge using a Department account. Two noted that they retained their emails
on Department servers and one recalled receiving training on the topic of email preservation.
84
5 FAM 443.3 (October 30, 1995).
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
20
UNCLASSIFIED
Secretary Powell (January 20, 2001 – January 26, 2005): During Secretary Powell’s tenure, the
Department introduced for the first time unclassified desktop email and access to the Internet
on a system known as OpenNet, which remains in use to this day. Secretary Powell did not
employ a Department email account, even after OpenNet’s introduction. He has publicly written:
To complement the official State Department computer in my office, I installed a laptop
computer on a private line. My personal email account on the laptop allowed me direct
access to anyone online. I started shooting emails to my principal assistants, to individual
ambassadors, and increasingly to my foreign-minister colleagues …. 85
OIG identified emails sent from and received by Secretary Powell’s personal account in selected
records associated with Secretary Powell. During his interview with OIG, Secretary Powell stated
that he accessed the email account via his personal laptop computer in his office, while
traveling, and at his residence, but not through a mobile device. His representative advised the
Department that Secretary Powell “did not retain those emails or make printed copies.” 86
Secretary Powell also stated that neither he nor his representatives took any specific measures
to preserve Federal records in his email account. Secretary Powell’s representative told OIG that
she asked Department staff responsible for recordkeeping whether they needed to do anything
to preserve the Secretary’s emails prior to his departure, though she could not recall the names
or titles of these staff. According to the representative, the Department staff responded that the
Secretary’s emails would be captured on Department servers because the Secretary had emailed
other Department employees.
However, according to records management requirements and OIG’s discussion with NARA,
sending emails from a personal account to other employees at their Department accounts is not
an appropriate method of preserving emails that constitute Federal records. 87 Guidance issued
by both NARA and the Department emphasize that all employees have records management
responsibilities and must make and preserve records that they send and receive. 88 Moreover, in
keeping with NARA regulations, 89 the Department’s policies specifically acknowledged that its
email system at the time did not contain features necessary for long-term preservation of
Federal records. 90 Therefore, Secretary Powell should have preserved any Federal records he
85
Colin Powell, It Worked for Me, at 109 (2012).
86
Grafeld Letter.
87
36 C.F.R. § 1234.24(b)(2) (August 28, 1995).
88
5 FAM 414.8 (September 17, 2004). The prior version was located at: 5 FAM 413.10 (October 30, 1995). See also,
NARA, Frequently Asked Questions about Records Management in General, available at:
http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/faqs/general.html#responsibility (January 20, 2001) (stating that “Federal
employees are responsible for making and keeping records of their work.”)
89
36 C.F.R. §1234.24(d) (August 28, 1995). In 2009, this provision was moved to 36 C.F.R. §1236.22(d) (October 2,
2009). It states, “Agencies must not use an electronic mail system to store the recordkeeping copy of electronic mail
messages identified as Federal records unless that system” has certain listed attributes.
90
As noted previously, Department guidance explained that messages must be printed and filed until “until
technology allowing archival capabilities for long-term electronic storage and retrieval of E-mail records is available
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
21
UNCLASSIFIED
created and received on his personal account by printing and filing those records with the
related files in the Office of the Secretary. 91
NARA agrees that the records should have been printed and filed but also told OIG that any
effort to transfer such records to the Department would have mitigated the failure to preserve
these records. At a minimum, Secretary Powell should have surrendered all emails sent from or
received in his personal account that related to Department business. Because he did not do so
at the time that he departed government service or at any time thereafter, Secretary Powell did
not comply with Department policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal
Records Act. In an attempt to address this deficiency, NARA requested that the Department
inquire with Secretary Powell’s “internet service or email provider” to determine whether it is still
possible to retrieve the email records that might remain on its servers.92 The Under Secretary for
Management subsequently informed NARA that the Department sent a letter to Secretary
Powell’s representative conveying this request. 93 As of May 2016, the Department had not
received a response from Secretary Powell or his representative.
Members of Secretary Powell’s immediate staff who responded to OIG questionnaires described
minimal email usage overall—two staff recalled printing and filing emails in Department
recordkeeping systems. 94 While the limited number of respondents also asserted they did not
use personal email accounts for official business, OIG discovered some personal email usage for
official business by Secretary Powell’s staff through its own review of selected records.
Secretary Rice (January 26, 2005 – January 20, 2009): Secretary Rice and her representative
advised the Department and OIG that the Secretary did not use either personal or Department
email accounts for official business. 95 OIG searched selected records and did not find any
evidence to indicate that the Secretary used such accounts during her tenure.
OIG received limited responses on questionnaires sent to former Secretary Rice’s staff. Two staff
recalled printing and filing emails, and only one acknowledged the use of personal email
and installed” that will preserve messages for “periods longer than current E-mail systems routinely maintain them.” 5
FAM 443.3 (October 30, 1995).
91
5 FAM 443.3 (October 30, 1995).
92
Letter from Paul M. Wester, Jr., Chief Records Officer for the U.S. Government, NARA, to Margaret P. Grafeld,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Global Information Systems, Bureau of Administration, U.S. Department of State (July 2,
2015).
93
Letter from Patrick F. Kennedy, Under Secretary of State for Management, to Laurence Brewer, Acting Chief Records
Officer for the U.S. Government, NARA (November 6, 2015).
94
OIG sent 18 questionnaires to former Secretary Powell’s staff and received 6 responses, of which one was
anonymous. Two respondents stated they created records by printing copies of emails from their Department
accounts and filing them into the Department’s records system. One respondent recalled receiving records retention
training.
95
Grafeld Letter.
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
22
UNCLASSIFIED
accounts for official business. 96 OIG reviewed hard-copy and electronic records of Secretary
Rice’s immediate staff and discovered that other staff who did not reply to the questionnaire did
use personal email accounts to conduct official business.
Secretary Clinton (January 21, 2009 – February 1, 2013): Former Secretary Clinton did not use a
Department email account and has acknowledged using an email account maintained on a
private server for official business. As discussed above, in December 2014, her representative
produced to the Department 55,000 hard-copy pages of documents, representing
approximately 30,000 emails that could potentially constitute Federal records that she sent or
received from April 2009 through early 2013. Secretary Clinton’s representative asserted that,
because the Secretary emailed Department officials at their government email accounts, the
Department already had records of the Secretary’s email preserved within its recordkeeping
systems. 97
As previously discussed, however, sending emails from a personal account to other employees
at their Department accounts is not an appropriate method of preserving any such emails that
would constitute a Federal record. Therefore, Secretary Clinton should have preserved any
Federal records she created and received on her personal account by printing and filing those
records with the related files in the Office of the Secretary. 98 At a minimum, Secretary Clinton
should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving
government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s
policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.
NARA agrees with the foregoing assessment but told OIG that Secretary Clinton’s production of
55,000 pages of emails mitigated her failure to properly preserve emails that qualified as Federal
records during her tenure and to surrender such records upon her departure. OIG concurs with
NARA but also notes that Secretary Clinton’s production was incomplete. For example, the
Department and OIG both determined that the production included no email covering the first
few months of Secretary Clinton’s tenure—from January 21, 2009, to March 17, 2009, for
received messages; and from January 21, 2009, to April 12, 2009, for sent messages. OIG
discovered multiple instances in which Secretary Clinton’s personal email account sent and
received official business email during this period. For instance, the Department of Defense
provided to OIG in September 2015 copies of 19 emails between Secretary Clinton and General
David Petraeus on his official Department of Defense email account; these 19 emails were not in
the Secretary’s 55,000-page production. OIG also learned that the 55,000-page production did
96
OIG sent 23 questionnaires to Secretary Rice’s former staff and received 9 responses. Only one respondent reported
using personal email accounts to conduct official business when “Department accounts were down or inaccessible.”
Two respondents said they printed emails and filed them into the Department’s records systems; another said he
believed IRM “backed up” all emails. One respondent stated she did not recall any specific instructions about
retaining emails but assumed all emails were captured electronically.
97
Letter from Cheryl Mills, cdmills Group, to Patrick F. Kennedy, Under Secretary of State for Management (December
5, 2014).
98
5 FAM 443.3 (October 30, 1995).
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
23
UNCLASSIFIED
not contain some emails that an external contact not employed by the Department sent to
Secretary Clinton regarding Department business. In an attempt to address these deficiencies,
NARA requested that the Department inquire with Secretary Clinton’s “internet service or email
provider” to determine whether it is still possible to retrieve the email records that might remain
on its servers. 99 The Department conveyed this request to Secretary Clinton’s representative and
on November 6, 2015, the Under Secretary for Management reported to NARA that the
representative responded as follows:
With regard to her tenure as Secretary of State, former Secretary Clinton has provided
the Department on December 5, 2014, with all federal e-mail records in her custody,
regardless of their format or the domain on which they were stored or created, that may
not otherwise be preserved, to our knowledge, in the Department’s recordkeeping
system. She does not have custody of e-mails sent or received during the first few weeks
of her tenure as she was transitioning to a new address, and we have been unable to
obtain these. In the event we do, we will immediately provide the Department with
federal record e-mails in this collection. 100
With regard to Secretary Clinton’s immediate staff, OIG received limited responses to its
questionnaires, though two of Secretary Clinton’s staff acknowledged occasional use of personal
email accounts for official business. 101 However, OIG learned of extensive use of personal email
accounts by four immediate staff members (none of whom responded to the questionnaire).
During the summer of 2015, their representatives produced Federal records in response to a
request from the Department, portions of which included material sent and received via their
personal email accounts. 102 The material consists of nearly 72,000 pages in hard copy and more
than 7.5 gigabytes of electronic data. One of the staff submitted 9,585 emails spanning January
22, 2009, to February 24, 2013, averaging 9 emails per workday sent on a personal email
account. In this material, there are instances where the four individuals sent or received emails
99
Letter from Paul M. Wester, Jr., Chief Records Officer for the U.S. Government, NARA, to Margaret P. Grafeld,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Global Information Systems, Bureau of Administration, U.S. Department of State (July 2,
2015).
100
Letter from Patrick F. Kennedy, Under Secretary of State for Management, to Laurence Brewer, Acting Chief
Records Officer for the U.S. Government, NARA (November 6, 2015).
101
OIG sent 26 questionnaires to Secretary Clinton’s staff and received 5 responses. Three respondents reported that
they did not use personal email accounts to conduct official business. Another reported occasionally using personal
email accounts while traveling with the Secretary and when Department accounts were not working. Another said he
occasionally used his personal laptop or desktop at home to access the Department’s OpenNet and that he assumed
all data processed on OpenNet would be available to the Department.
102
The material was produced to the Department for the following individuals:
Title
Production Dates
Counselor and Chief of Staff
6/25/2015; 8/10/2015; 8/12/2015
Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations
7/9/2015; 8/7/2015
Deputy Chief of Staff/Director of Policy Planning
7/30/2015
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Strategic Communications
7/28/2015; 8/6/15
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
24
UNCLASSIFIED
regarding Department business using only their personal web-based email accounts.
Accordingly, these staff failed to comply with Department policies intended to implement NARA
regulations, because none of these emails were preserved in Department recordkeeping systems
prior to their production in 2015. 103 As noted above, NARA has concluded that these subsequent
productions mitigated their failure to properly preserve emails that qualified as Federal records
during their service as Department employees. However, OIG did not attempt to determine
whether these productions were complete. None of these individuals are currently employed by
the Department.
Secretary Kerry (February 1, 2013 – Present): Secretary Kerry uses a Department email account
on OpenNet and stated that, while he has used a personal email account to conduct official
business, he has done so infrequently. In his interview with OIG, Secretary Kerry stated that he
used his personal email more frequently when he was transitioning from the U.S. Senate to the
Office of the Secretary. However, after discussions with his aides and other Department staff, he
began primarily using his Department email account to conduct official business. The Secretary
stated he may occasionally use personal email for official business when responding to a sender
who emailed him on his personal account. The Secretary also stated that he either copies or
forwards such emails to his Department account and copies his assistant. OIG’s limited review of
electronic records shows some personal email account usage by Secretary Kerry. Secretary
Kerry’s emails are now being retained using the Capstone approach discussed previously, which
complies with the Federal Records Act and email records management requirements. 104
OIG received responses to questionnaires from most of Secretary Kerry’s immediate staff, who
reported occasional use of personal email accounts for official business. 105 A number of staff
also reported that they follow current policy on forwarding emails containing Federal records
from personal accounts to Department accounts. 106 OIG’s limited review of electronic records
shows some personal email account usage by these staff.
Other staff reported that their emails are being retained using the Capstone approach, and
some mentioned preserving emails through printing and filing. Several staff mentioned
preserving emails by saving them in their Department email accounts. However, as previously
103
36 C.F.R. §1236.22(d) (October 2, 2009); 5 FAM 443.3 (October 30, 1995).
104
NARA, Guidance on a New Approach to Managing Email Records, Bulletin No. 2013-02 (August 29, 2013), available
at https://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/bulletins/2013/2013-02.html.
105
OIG sent 36 questionnaires to Secretary Kerry’s staff and received 30 responses (several of the non-respondents
had departed or were departing the Office of the Secretary), as well as a completed questionnaire from Secretary
Kerry. With regard to preservation of Department emails, many reported retaining files in Microsoft Outlook and
others reported that the Department was permanently retaining their email as part of the new Capstone program for
senior officials. Most staff reported receiving training or other guidance on records preservation requirements
through a variety of means, including formal training sessions, briefings, memos, and Department notices. Eleven staff
reported using personal email accounts or other devices for official business, usually because of Internet connectivity
interruptions while traveling.
106
Eight stated that they forwarded or copied these emails to their Department accounts for records preservation
purposes.
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
25
UNCLASSIFIED
noted, NARA regulations state that agencies may only use an electronic mail system to store the
recordkeeping copy of electronic mail messages identified as Federal records if that system
contains specific features; 107 the current Department email system does not contain these
features. Given that the Office of the Secretary does not use the SMART system, staff whose
emails are not being retained under the Capstone approach should still be preserving emails
through printing and filing. However, as previously noted, the Department is in the process of
adopting a new email records management system that will cover the Office of the Secretary
with the goal of meeting the requirement to manage all email records in an electronic format by
December 31, 2016. 108 The Department plans that this system will eventually capture some of
the email currently saved in Department email accounts and all of the email of senior officials
currently being preserved.
CYBERSECURITY RISKS RESULT FROM THE USE OF
NON-DEPARTMENTAL SYSTEMS AND EMAIL ACCOUNTS
In addition to complying with records management and preservation requirements, Department
employees, including those in the Office of the Secretary, must comply with cybersecurity
policies. Department information must be secure and protected from threats.
DS and IRM are the two bureaus within the Department with primary responsibility for ensuring
the security of Department electronic information. 109 IRM is responsible for establishing effective
information resource management planning and policies; ensuring the availability of information
technology systems and operations; and approving development and administration of the
Department’s computer and information security programs and policies. DS is responsible for
providing a safe and secure environment for the conduct of U.S. foreign policy, including
personal, physical, and information security. 110
According to DS and IRM officials, Department employees must use agency-authorized
information systems to conduct normal day-to-day operations because the use of nonDepartmental systems creates significant security risks. Department policies have evolved
considerably over the past two decades; but since 1996, the FAM and FAH have contained
numerous provisions regulating the use of such outside systems, including computers, personal
devices, Internet connections, and email. (See Appendix A for a compilation of related
cybersecurity laws and policies that were in effect during the tenures of each Secretary, from
Secretary Albright through Secretary Kerry.) These provisions do contemplate limited use of
non-Departmental systems, but the exceptions are quite narrow. Among the risks is the
107
36 C.F.R. § 1236.22 (October 2, 2009).
108
OMB and NARA, Memorandum for The Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies and Independent Agencies:
Managing Government Records Directive (OMB Memorandum M-12-18) (August 24, 2012).
109
1 FAM 271.1(4) (March 5, 2010).
110
12 FAM 010 (December 21, 2004).
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
26
UNCLASSIFIED
targeting and penetration of the personal email accounts of Department employees, which was
brought to the attention of the most senior officials of the Department as early as 2011. 111
Another significant risk is the introduction of viruses and malware onto Department systems,
which increases their vulnerability to intrusion.
Based on this evaluation and a previous OIG inspection, OIG identified three Department
officials—Secretary Powell, Secretary Clinton, and a former U.S. Ambassador to Kenya—who
exclusively used non-Departmental systems to conduct official business. As will be discussed in
greater detail below, OIG acknowledges significant differences in the facts and circumstances
surrounding each of these cases.
Employees Generally Must Use Department Information Systems To Conduct
Official Business
The Department’s current policy, implemented in 2005, is that normal day-to-day operations
should be conducted on an authorized Automated Information System (AIS), which “has the
proper level of security control to … ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the
resident information.” 112 The FAM defines an AIS as an assembly of hardware, software, and
firmware used to electronically input, process, store, and/or output data. 113 Examples include:
mainframes, servers, desktop workstations, and mobile devices (such as laptops, e-readers,
smartphones, and tablets).
This policy comports with FISMA, which was enacted in December 2002 and requires Federal
agencies to ensure information security for the systems that support the agency’s operations
and assets, including information security protections for information systems used by a
contractor of an agency or other organization on behalf of an agency. 114 FISMA defines
information security as protecting information and information systems from unauthorized
access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification, or destruction in order to provide for the
integrity, confidentiality, and availability of the information and systems. 115 In 2006, as required
by FISMA, NIST promulgated minimum security requirements that apply to all information
within the Federal Government and to Federal information systems.116 Among these are
requirements for certifying and accrediting information systems, retaining system audit records
for monitoring purposes, conducting risk assessments, and ensuring the protection of
communications.
111
See, e.g., 11 STATE 65111 (June 28, 2011).
112
12 FAM 544.3 (November 4, 2005). This provision also states that “The Department’s authorized telework
solution(s) are designed in a manner that meet these requirements and are not considered end points outside of the
Department’s management control.”
113
12 FAM 091 (January 11, 2016).
114
44 U.S.C. § 3554.
115
44 U.S.C. § 3552(b)(3).
116
NIST, FIPS PUB 200: Minimum Security Requirements for Federal Information and Information Systems (March
2006).
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
27
UNCLASSIFIED
In 2007, the Department adopted additional policies to implement these requirements,
including numerous provisions intended to ensure that non-Departmental information systems
that process or store Department information maintain the same minimum security controls.
Further, non-Departmental systems that are sponsored by the Department to process
information on its behalf must be registered with the Department. 117
Restrictions Apply to the Use of Non-Departmental Systems
The FAM and FAH contain a number of restrictions regarding the use of non-Departmental
computers, mobile devices, Internet connections, and personal email to transmit Department
information. These provisions have evolved since 1996, but employees must implement
safeguards or request approval before using such equipment. Figure 2 shows the evolution of
these provisions and related statutes and regulations.
117
5 FAH-11 H-412.4(c)(4) (June 25, 2007).
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
28
UNCLASSIFIED
Source: OIG analysis of laws and policies.
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
29
UNCLASSIFIED
Privately Owned Computers and Mobile Devices: In 1996, the FAM directed Department
systems managers to ensure that privately owned computers were not installed or used in any
Department office building. 118 In 2008, the Department amended this provision to prohibit the
use or installation of non-U.S. Government-owned computers in any Department facility without
the written approval of DS and IRM, with certain exceptions. 119
In 2009, the Department adopted polices addressing the specific requirements for use of nonDepartment-owned personal digital assistants (PDAs). 120 Under this policy, PDAs could only be
turned on and used within Department areas that are strictly unclassified (such as the cafeteria)
and could not connect with a Department network except via a Department-approved remoteaccess program, such as Global OpenNet. 121 In 2014, the Department amended this provision to
authorize Department managers in domestic locations to allow non-Department-owned PDAs
within their specific work areas, provided users maintain a minimum 10-foot separation between
the PDA and classified processing equipment. In 2015, the Department replaced these
provisions with a new FAH provision that included the domestic 10-foot-separation rule and the
ban on connecting to a Department network except via a Department-approved remote-access
program. 122
Related to these provisions is the Department policy on “remote processing”—the processing of
Department unclassified or sensitive but unclassified (SBU) information on non-Departmentowned systems (such as a home computer or a tablet) or on Department-owned systems (such
as a Department-issued laptop) at non-Departmental facilities (such as at an employee’s home
or a hotel)—which has been in place since 2008. 123 Under this policy, management and
employees must exercise “particular care and judgment” when remotely processing SBU
information. 124 Offices that allow employees to remotely process SBU information must ensure
that appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards are maintained to protect the
118
12 FAM 625.2-1 (April 12, 1996).
119
12 FAM 625.2-1 (July 28, 2008). This provision was removed from the FAM in 2015, but a FAH provision prohibits
the installation of non-Department owned information systems within Department facilities without the written
authorization of DS and IRM. 12 FAH-10 H-112.14-2 (September 19, 2014). Both the FAM and FAH provisions include
an exception for a non-Department entity that has an approved dedicated space within a Department facility.
120
The FAM defined PDAs as “hand-held computers” including “standard personal digital assistants; e.g., Palm
devices, Win CE devices, etc., and multi-function automated information system (AIS) devices; e.g., BlackBerry devices,
PDA/cell phones, etc.” 12 FAM 683.1 (December 2, 2009).
121
12 FAM 683.2-3 (December 2, 2009).
122
12 FAH-10 H-165.4 (May 20, 2015). These devices are referred to as Non-Department Owned Mobile Devices
(NDOMDs).
123
12 FAM 682 (August 4, 2008). This subchapter was later removed from the FAM and moved to the FAH at 12 FAH10 H-170 (as amended January 11, 2016).
124
12 FAM 682.2-4 (August 4, 2008). This requirement is currently located at 12 FAH-10 H-173.4 (January 11, 2016).
SBU information is defined in the FAM as information that is not classified for national security reasons but that
warrants or requires administrative control and protection from public or other unauthorized disclosure for other
reasons. Examples include personnel data, visa and asylum records, law enforcement information, privileged
communications, and deliberative inter- or intra-agency communications. 12 FAM 541 (March 5, 2013).
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
30
UNCLASSIFIED
confidentiality and integrity of records and to ensure encryption of SBU information with
products certified by NIST. Employees must implement and regularly update basic home
security controls, including a firewall, anti-spyware, antivirus, and file-destruction applications for
all computers on the network. 125 In 2014, the Department added a provision to the FAH to
require users who process SBU information on non-Department-owned storage media to
encrypt it with products certified by NIST. 126
Internet Connections: Since the end of 2002, the FAM has required all Department facilities to
use the Department’s primary Internet connection, OpenNet, to establish Internet
connectivity. 127 The Department further regulated access to the Internet by establishing rules in
2004 addressing the use of non-Departmental Internet connections in Department facilities. 128
Personal Email: Since 2002, Department employees have been prohibited from auto-forwarding
their email to a personal email address “to preclude inadvertent transmission of SBU email on
the Internet.” 129
The FAM also reminds employees that “transmissions from the Department’s OpenNet to and
from non-U.S. Government Internet addresses, and other .gov or .mil addresses, unless
specifically directed through an approved secure means, traverse the Internet unencrypted.” 130
The FAM further states that, with regard to SBU information, the Department is expected to
provide, and employees are expected to use, approved secure methods to transmit such
information when available and practical. However, if such secure methods are not available,
employees with a valid business need may transmit SBU information over the Internet
unencrypted so long as they carefully consider that unencrypted emails can pass through
foreign and domestic controlled ISPs, placing the confidentiality and integrity of the information
at risk. In addition, the FAM instructs employees transmitting SBU information outside the
125
12 FAM 682.2-5 (August 4, 2008). Currently, these requirements, as amended, are located at 12 FAH-10 H-173.4
(January 11, 2016). The amended provision requires NIST FIPS 140-2 encryption for SBU information in addition to the
use of a firewall anti-spyware, anti-virus, and file destruction applications.
126
12 FAH-10 H-172.1 (September 25, 2014). Currently, this requirement is located at 12 FAH-10 H-173.4 (January 11,
2016). If the employee has a wireless home network, the FAH requires use of a NIST-validated product to secure the
wireless connection. 12 FAH-10 H-173.4(9) (September 25, 2014).
127
5 FAM 871 (December 30, 2002). The language of this provision was amended in 2004, 2009, and 2013, but the
basic requirement to use OpenNet has remained consistent.
128
5 FAM 874.2 (May 4, 2004). Currently, these rules are at 5 FAM 872 (May 1, 2014). Department facilities must seek
authorization from the bureau Executive Director or post Management Officer to use such a connection. 5 FAM 872.1
(May 1, 2014). Such systems may not be used to process SBU information, except in limited amounts under exigent
circumstances. 5 FAM 872.2 (May 1, 2014).
129
5 FAM 751.2 (February 27, 2002). This rule was amended in 2011 to incorporate a prohibition on including a
personal email address in an auto-reply message. 5 FAM 752.1(e) (November 14, 2011).
130
12 FAM 544.3 (November 4, 2005). From 2002 to 2005, transmission of SBU information over the Internet was
completely prohibited. 5 FAM 751.2 (February 27, 2002).
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
31
UNCLASSIFIED
Department’s OpenNet network on a regular basis to the same official or personal email address
to request a solution from IRM. 131
In 2015, the Department amended the FAM to incorporate NARA’s guidance, which advises
employees that “personal accounts should only be used in exceptional circumstances.” 132 This
provision also states that “Department employees are discouraged from using private email
accounts (e.g., Gmail, AOL, Hotmail, etc.) for official business [except] in those very limited
circumstances when it becomes necessary to do so.” However, the FAM gives no further
guidance about what type of circumstances would permit use of personal email.
The Department Has Issued Numerous Warnings About Cybersecurity Risks
One of the primary reasons that Department policy requires the use of Department systems is to
guard against cybersecurity incidents. Threats and actual attacks against the Department have
been on the rise for nearly a decade. For example, in May 2006, the Department experienced
large-scale computer intrusions that targeted its headquarters and its East Asian posts.133
Consequently, the Department has issued numerous announcements, cables, training
requirements, and memos to highlight the various restrictions and risks associated with the use
of non-Departmental systems, especially the use of personal email accounts.
As early as 2004, Department cables reminded staff that only Department-approved software
should be installed on the Department’s information systems because outside software may
bypass firewall and anti-virus checks, creating an open channel for hackers and malicious code,
thus placing Department networks at serious risk. 134 Since then, the Department has published
prohibitions or warnings related to the use of instant messaging, PDAs and smartphones, thumb
drives, CDs and DVDs, Internet browsers, and personally owned devices. 135 Employees are also
reminded of these issues through the Department’s required annual Cybersecurity Awareness
course. 136 Further, in 2005 DS’s Cyber Threat Analysis Division (CTAD) began issuing notices to
Department computer users specifically highlighting cybersecurity threats. For example, CTAD’s
131
12 FAM 544.2 (November 4, 2005).
132
5 FAM 443.7 (October 23, 2015).
133
See Cyber Insecurity: Hackers Are Penetrating Federal Systems And Critical Infrastructure: Hearing Before the
House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee On Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity And Science And
Technology, 110th Congress (2007) (statement of Donald Reid, Senior Coordinator for Security Infrastructure, Bureau
of Diplomatic Security, U.S. Department of State), at 13-15.
134
04 STATE 204864 (September 22, 2004).
135
See e.g., 05 STATE 096534 (May 2005); Prohibition Against Use of Privately Owned Software/Hardware on
Department Automated Information Systems, Announcement No. 2006_01_074 (January 24, 2006); Use Of
Unclassified/SBU Thumb Drives, Announcement No. 2008_09_046 (September 9, 2008); Using PEDs Abroad,
Announcement No. 2008_09_068 (September 12, 2008); Remote Accessing and Processing, Announcement No.
2008_11_061 (November 14, 2008); 09 STATE 130999 (December 24, 2009); Use of Non-Department Owned Personal
Digital Assistants (PDAs) and Smartphones in Department Facilities, Announcement No. 2010_10_150 (October 26,
2010).
136
5 FAM 845 (July 12, 2013).
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
32
UNCLASSIFIED
notices from 2005 to 2011 addressed BlackBerry security vulnerabilities, generally citing mobile
devices as a weak link in computer networks.137 CTAD warned that BlackBerry devices must be
configured in accordance with the Department’s security guidelines.
In July 2005, IRM introduced its BlackBerry service that provided domestic users access to their
OpenNet email, calendar, and contacts. 138 From the beginning, the BlackBerry servers were
required to be configured in accordance with the current DS Information Technology Security
Guide, which contains an extensive list of security settings that lock down the devices. These
security standards continue to apply to current Department BlackBerry devices.
In March 2009, after unsuccessful efforts to supply Secretary Clinton with a secure government
smartphone, DS was informed that Secretary Clinton’s staff had been asking to use BlackBerry
devices inside classified areas. The Assistant Secretary of DS then sent a classified memorandum
to Secretary Clinton’s Chief of Staff that described the vulnerabilities associated with the use of
BlackBerry devices and also noted the prohibition on the use of Blackberry devices in sensitive
areas. According to a DS official, shortly after the memorandum was delivered, Secretary Clinton
approached the Assistant Secretary and told him she “gets it.”
The use of personal email accounts to conduct official business has been a particular concern
over the past several years. For example, on March 11, 2011, the Assistant Secretary for
Diplomatic Security sent a memorandum on cybersecurity threats directly to Secretary
Clinton. 139 A portion of the unclassified version of this memorandum states:
Threat analysis by the DS cyber security team and related incident reports indicate a
dramatic increase since January 2011 in attempts by [redacted] cyber actors to
compromise the private home e-mail accounts of senior Department officials. …
Although the targets are unclassified, personal e-mail accounts, the likely objective is to
compromise user accounts and thereby gain access to policy documents and personal
information that could enable technical surveillance and possible blackmail. The personal
e-mail of family members also is at risk.
The memorandum included as an attachment “a snapshot of affected Department personnel,”
noting that many of the email account owners play major roles in forming diplomatic and
economic policy. 140 It concluded by noting, “We also urge Department users to minimize the use
137
See, e.g., CTAD, Cyber Security Awareness (March 3, 2011).
138
Department of State, Blackberry Wireless PDA Use in the Department of State, Announcement No. 2005_07_018,
July 7, 2005. This announcement also notes: “Personal Blackberry devices are not allowed.” In September 2005,
overseas posts were also authorized to procure, install, and operate their own BlackBerry Enterprise Server (BES) and
BlackBerry devices. 05 STATE 172062 (September 2005).
139
OIG asked DS if it had sent memoranda warning of similar risks to other Secretaries, but it could not find any
similar examples.
140
Spear phishing was one of the several types of threats included in the Memorandum. It is an attack on a single
user or department within an organization, such as asking employees to update their username and passwords. Once
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
33
UNCLASSIFIED
of personal web email for business, as some compromised home systems have been
reconfigured by these actors to automatically forward copies of all composed emails to an
undisclosed recipient.”
Following the March 2011 memorandum, DS cybersecurity staff conducted two cybersecurity
briefings of S/ES staff, the Secretary’s immediate staff, and Bureau of Public Affairs staff in April
and May 2011. OIG discovered in Secretary Clinton’s retired paper files a copy of the classified
presentation used during the briefing. It contains material similar to the type provided in the
March 11, 2011, memorandum.
On June 28, 2011, the Department, in a cable entitled “Securing Personal E-mail Accounts” that
was approved by the Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security and sent over Secretary
Clinton’s name to all diplomatic and consular posts, encouraged Department users “to check the
security settings and change passwords of their home e-mail accounts because of recent
targeting of personal email accounts by online adversaries.” 141 The cable further elaborated that
“recently, Google asserted that online adversaries are targeting the personal Gmail accounts of
U.S. government employees. Although the company believes it has taken appropriate steps to
remediate identified activity, users should exercise caution and follow best practices in order to
protect personal e-mail and prevent the compromise of government and personal information.”
It then recommended best practices for Department users and their family members to follow,
including “avoid conducting official Department business from your personal e-mail
accounts.” 142
Three Officials Exclusively Used Non-Departmental Systems for Day-to-Day
Operations
Cybersecurity risks demonstrate the need both for restrictions on the use of non-Departmental
systems and for requirements to seek approval before using such systems. A senior IRM official
hackers obtain this information, they can easily access entry into secured networks. Another example of spear
phishing is asking users to click on a link, which deploys spyware.
141
11 STATE 65111 (June 28, 2011).
142
That portion of the cable reads in full as follows:
3. What can you and your family members do?
(a) Follow the personal e-mail guides posted on the Awareness site to change your password, to ensure that
messages are not auto-forwarding to an unintended address, and to verify that other security settings are
properly configured.
(b) Beware of e-mail messages that include links to password reset web pages. These can be easily faked.
(c) Create strong passwords for all of your online accounts, change them often, and never use the same
password for more than one account.
(d) Avoid conducting official Department business from your personal e-mail accounts.
(e) Do not reveal your personal e-mail address in your work "Out of Office" message.
(f) Do not auto-forward Department e-mail to personal e-mail accounts, which is prohibited by Department
policy (12 FAM 544.3).
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
34
UNCLASSIFIED
reported to OIG that many Department employees have requested to use non-Departmental
systems to conduct business; examples include requests to use outside video conferencing
systems and file sharing software. According to this official, the Department typically refuses
such requests. For instance, in 2012, Department staff submitted a request to IRM to use an
Internet-based teleconference service. In response, IRM cited the 2005 FAM provision (12 FAM
544.3) requiring that normal day-to-day operations be conducted on an authorized AIS and
further noted that the Department “expect[s] employees to use the tools provided by the
Department to protect sensitive information from unauthorized access or disclosure” and only
permits the use of non-Departmental systems ”when absolutely necessary.” Other employees
have sought to use Dropbox, a cloud-based file hosting service, but IRM has blocked access to
the site on OpenNet since 2011 because of the risk of unauthorized access to Department data.
The senior IRM official told OIG that the Department seldom encounters “an ‘absolutely
necessary’ condition that would lead to approval for non-emergency processing/transmission of
Department work outside [the Department’s] network.”
OIG identified many examples of staff using personal email accounts to conduct official
business; however, OIG could only identify three cases where officials used non-Departmental
systems on an exclusive basis for day-to-day operations. These include former Secretaries Powell
and Clinton, as well as Jonathan Scott Gration, a former Ambassador to Kenya. Although the
former Ambassador was not a member of the Office of the Secretary, the Department’s
response to his actions demonstrates how such usage is normally handled when Department
cybersecurity officials become aware of it. The facts and circumstances surrounding each of
these cases are discussed below:
Secretary Powell: Secretary Powell has acknowledged using a personal email account from a
commercial Internet provider, which he accessed on a “private line” in his Department office. He
further stated that he had two computers at his desk: “a secure State Department machine …
used for secure material, and…a laptop [used] for email.” 143 Neither the Secretary nor his
representative could recall whether Secretary Powell owned the laptop or whether the
Department provided it to him. However, the Secretary characterized the use of the laptop as his
“unclassified system,” which was not connected to OpenNet. In his interview with OIG, Secretary
Powell explained that, when he arrived at the Department, the email system in place only
permitted communication among Department staff. He therefore requested that information
technology staff install the private line so that he could use his personal account to communicate
with people outside the Department. 144 He described his email usage as “daily,” though OIG was
unable to determine how many emails he actually sent and received during his tenure.
143
Meet the Press (NBC television broadcast September 6, 2015) (interview with Colin Powell), available at
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-transcript-september-6-2015-n422606.
144
Secretary Powell also acknowledged using his personal account to communicate with Department employees.
Meet the Press (NBC television broadcast September 6, 2015) (interview with Colin Powell).
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
35
UNCLASSIFIED
Various DS and IRM staff told OIG that, before Secretary Powell arrived at the Department,
employees did not have Internet connectivity on their desktop computers. The Department’s
Chief Information Officer (CIO) and Under Secretary for Management during Secretary Powell’s
tenure reported to OIG that they were aware of Secretary Powell’s use of a personal email
account and also noted the Secretary’s goal was to provide every Department employee with
similar Internet and email capabilities at their desktops. The current CIO and Assistant Secretary
for Diplomatic Security, who were Department employees during Secretary Powell’s tenure, also
were both aware of the Secretary’s use of a personal email account and recall numerous
discussions with senior staff throughout the Department about how to implement the
Secretary’s intent to provide all employees with Internet connectivity.
However, it is not clear whether staff explicitly addressed restrictions on the use of nonDepartmental systems with Secretary Powell. For example, at the beginning of Secretary Powell’s
tenure, the Department had an outright prohibition on both the installation of privately owned
computers in Department facilities and the transmission of SBU information on the Internet. 145
By 2002, the Department had established the requirement to connect to the Internet only on
OpenNet. 146 The CIO and Under Secretary for Management during Secretary’s Powell’s tenure
reported to OIG that they believe that these issues were addressed, either by installing a firewall
to protect the Secretary’s Internet connection or providing the Secretary with a Department
laptop. They also reported having multiple discussions with Secretary Powell about the
Department’s implementation of FISMA requirements. In contrast, current DS and IRM officials
who worked at the Department during Secretary Powell’s tenure are unsure about the exact
configuration of Secretary Powell’s systems and whether staff addressed applicable restrictions
with the Secretary. However, they reported to OIG that the Department’s technology and
information security policies were very fluid during Secretary Powell’s tenure and that the
Department was not aware at the time of the magnitude of the security risks associated with
information technology.
Secretary Clinton: By Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the Department’s guidance was considerably
more detailed and more sophisticated. Beginning in late 2005 and continuing through 2011, the
Department revised the FAM and issued various memoranda specifically discussing the
obligation to use Department systems in most circumstances and identifying the risks of not
doing so. Secretary Clinton’s cybersecurity practices accordingly must be evaluated in light of
these more comprehensive directives.
Secretary Clinton used mobile devices to conduct official business using the personal email
account on her private server extensively, as illustrated by the 55,000 pages of material making
up the approximately 30,000 emails she provided to the Department in December 2014.
Throughout Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the FAM stated that normal day-to-day operations
145
12 FAM 625.2-1 (April 12, 1996); 5 FAM 751.2 (February 27, 2002).
146
5 FAM 871 (December 30, 2002).
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
36
UNCLASSIFIED
should be conducted on an authorized AIS, 147 yet OIG found no evidence that the Secretary
requested or obtained guidance or approval to conduct official business via a personal email
account on her private server. According to the current CIO and Assistant Secretary for
Diplomatic Security, Secretary Clinton had an obligation to discuss using her personal email
account to conduct official business with their offices, who in turn would have attempted to
provide her with approved and secured means that met her business needs. However, according
to these officials, DS and IRM did not—and would not—approve her exclusive reliance on a
personal email account to conduct Department business, because of the restrictions in the FAM
and the security risks in doing so.
During Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the FAM also instructed employees that they were expected
to use approved, secure methods to transmit SBU information and that, if they needed to
transmit SBU information outside the Department’s OpenNet network on a regular basis to nonDepartmental addresses, they should request a solution from IRM.148 However, OIG found no
evidence that Secretary Clinton ever contacted IRM to request such a solution, despite the fact
that emails exchanged on her personal account regularly contained information marked as SBU.
Similarly, the FAM contained provisions requiring employees who process SBU information on
their own devices to ensure that appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards
are maintained to protect the confidentiality and integrity of records and to ensure encryption
of SBU information with products certified by NIST. 149 With regard to encryption, Secretary
Clinton’s website states that “robust protections were put in place and additional upgrades and
techniques employed over time as they became available, including consulting and employing
third party experts.” 150 Although this report does not address the safety or security of her
system, DS and IRM reported to OIG that Secretary Clinton never demonstrated to them that her
private server or mobile device met minimum information security requirements specified by
FISMA and the FAM.
In addition to interviewing current and former officials in DS and IRM, OIG interviewed other
senior Department officials with relevant knowledge who served under Secretary Clinton,
including the Under Secretary for Management, who supervises both DS and IRM; current and
former Executive Secretaries; and attorneys within the Office of the Legal Adviser. These officials
all stated that they were not asked to approve or otherwise review the use of Secretary Clinton’s
server and that they had no knowledge of approval or review by other Department staff. These
officials also stated that they were unaware of the scope or extent of Secretary Clinton’s use of a
personal email account, though many of them sent emails to the Secretary on this account.
Secretary Clinton’s Chief of Staff also testified before the House Select Committee on Benghazi
that she was unaware of anyone being consulted about the Secretary’s exclusive use of a
147
12 FAM 544.3 (November 4, 2005).
148
12 FAM 544.2 (November 4, 2005).
149
12 FAM 682 (August 4, 2008).
150
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/ (date last downloaded April 20, 2016).
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
37
UNCLASSIFIED
personal email address. 151 OIG did find evidence that various staff and senior officials
throughout the Department had discussions related to the Secretary’s use of non-Departmental
systems, suggesting there was some awareness of Secretary Clinton’s practices. For example:
• In late-January 2009, in response to Secretary Clinton’s desire to take her BlackBerry
device into secure areas, her Chief of Staff discussed with senior officials in S/ES and with
the Under Secretary for Management alternative solutions, such as setting up a separate
stand-alone computer connected to the Internet for Secretary Clinton “to enable her to
check her emails from her desk.” The Under Secretary’s response was “the stand-alone
separate network PC is [a] great idea” and that it is “the best solution.” According to the
Department, no such computer was ever set up.
• In November 2010, Secretary Clinton and her Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations
discussed the fact that Secretary Clinton’s emails to Department employees were not
being received. The Deputy Chief of Staff emailed the Secretary that “we should talk
about putting you on state email or releasing your email address to the department so
you are not going to spam.” In response, the Secretary wrote, “Let’s get separate address
or device but I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible.” 152
• In August 2011, the Executive Secretary, the Under Secretary for Management, and
Secretary Clinton’s Chief of Staff and Deputy Chief of Staff, in response to the Secretary’s
request, discussed via email providing her with a Department BlackBerry to replace her
personal BlackBerry, which was malfunctioning, possibly because “her personal email
server is down.” The then-Executive Secretary informed staff of his intent to provide two
devices for the Secretary to use: “one with an operating State Department email account
(which would mask her identity, but which would also be subject to FOIA requests), and
another which would just have phone and internet capability.” In another email
exchange, the Director of S/ES-IRM noted that an email account and address had already
151
The pertinent testimony from the former Chief of Staff, who declined OIG’s request for an interview, reads as
follows:
Q Was anyone consulted about Secretary Clinton exclusively using a personal email address for her work?
A
I don't recall that. If it did happen, I wasn't part of that process. But I don’t believe there was a consultation
around it, or at least there's not one that I’m aware of, maybe I should better answer that way based on my
knowledge.
Q So no private counsel?
A Not that I'm aware of.
Q Okay. The general counsel for the State Department?
A Not that I'm aware of.
Q Okay. Anybody from the National Archives?
A Not that I'm aware of. But I can only speak to my knowledge, obviously.
Q Sure. And anyone from the White House?
A Not that I'm aware of.
152
Secretary Clinton declined OIG’s request for an interview. The former Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations has not
responded to OIG’s request for an interview.
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
38
UNCLASSIFIED
been set up for the Secretary 153 and also stated that “you should be aware that any email
would go through the Department’s infrastructure and subject to FOIA searches.” 154
However, the Secretary’s Deputy Chief of Staff rejected the proposal to use two devices,
stating that it “doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.” OIG found no evidence that the
Secretary obtained a Department address or device after this discussion.
• OIG identified two individuals who provided technical support to Secretary Clinton. The
first, who was at one time an advisor to former President Clinton but was never a
Department employee, registered the clintonemail.com domain name on January 13,
2009. 155 The second, a Schedule C political appointee who worked in IRM as a Senior
Advisor from May 2009 through February 2013, 156 provided technical support for
BlackBerry communications during the Secretary’s 2008 campaign for President. 157 OIG
reviewed emails showing communications between Department staff and both
individuals concerning operational issues affecting the Secretary’s email and server from
2010 through at least October 2012. For example, in December 2010, the Senior Advisor
worked with S/ES-IRM and IRM staff to resolve issues affecting the ability of emails
transmitted through the clintonemail.com domain used by Secretary Clinton to reach
Department email addresses using the state.gov domain. 158
153
According to the Department, this account was only used by Secretary Clinton’s staff to maintain an Outlook
calendar.
154
The former Director of S/ES-IRM declined OIG’s request for an interview.
155
The clintonemail.com domain name was registered with Network Solutions Certificate Authority on January 13,
2009 and identifies the advisor to former President Clinton as the registrant.
156
Schedule C appointments are those of a “confidential or policy-determining character” 5 C.F.R. § 6.2.
157
Secretary Clinton’s counsel advised OIG that the Senior Advisor “performed technology services for the Clinton
family for which he was compensated” by check or wire transfer in varying amounts and various times between 2009
and 2013. In addition, the Senior Advisor’s direct supervisors in IRM from 2009 to 2013 told OIG they were unaware of
his technical support of the Secretary’s email system. While working at the Department, the Senior Advisor reported
directly to the Deputy Chief Information Officer (DCIO) for Operations, who in turn reported to the Chief Information
Officer (CIO). The DCIO and CIO, who prepared and approved the Senior Advisor’s annual evaluations, believed that
the Senior Advisor’s job functions were limited to supporting mobile computing issues across the entire Department.
They told OIG that while they were aware that the Senior Advisor had provided IT support to the Clinton Presidential
campaign, they did not know he was providing ongoing support to the Secretary’s email system during working
hours. They also told OIG that they questioned whether he could support a private client during work hours, given his
capacity as a full-time government employee.
158
At that time, S/ES IRM staff met with the Senior Advisor, who accessed the Secretary’s email system and looked at
its logs. The issue was ultimately resolved and, on December 21, 2010, S/ES-IRM staff sent senior S/ES staffers an
email describing the issue and summarizing the activities undertaken to resolve it. On another occasion, the Senior
Advisor met with staff within CTAD and received a briefing on cyber security risks facing the Department. A third
interaction took place on October 30, 2012, during the period when Hurricane Sandy disrupted power in the New
York City area. An email exchange between Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and another member of the
Secretary’s staff revealed that the server located in Secretary Clinton’s New York residence was down. Thereafter, the
Senior Advisor met with S/ES-IRM staff to ascertain whether the Department could provide support for the server.
S/ES-IRM staff reported to OIG that they told the Senior Advisor they could not provide support because it was a
private server.
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
39
UNCLASSIFIED
• Two staff in S/ES-IRM reported to OIG that, in late 2010, they each discussed their
concerns about Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email account in separate meetings
with the then-Director of S/ES-IRM. In one meeting, one staff member raised concerns
that information sent and received on Secretary Clinton’s account could contain Federal
records that needed to be preserved in order to satisfy Federal recordkeeping
requirements. According to the staff member, the Director stated that the Secretary’s
personal system had been reviewed and approved by Department legal staff and that
the matter was not to be discussed any further. As previously noted, OIG found no
evidence that staff in the Office of the Legal Adviser reviewed or approved Secretary
Clinton’s personal system. According to the other S/ES-IRM staff member who raised
concerns about the server, the Director stated that the mission of S/ES-IRM is to support
the Secretary and instructed the staff never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email
system again.
• On January 9, 2011, the non-Departmental advisor to President Clinton who provided
technical support to the Clinton email system notified the Secretary’s Deputy Chief of
Staff for Operations that he had to shut down the server because he believed “someone
was trying to hack us and while they did not get in i didnt [sic] want to let them have the
chance to.” Later that day, the advisor again wrote to the Deputy Chief of Staff for
Operations, “We were attacked again so I shut [the server] down for a few min.” On
January 10, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations emailed the Chief of Staff and the
Deputy Chief of Staff for Planning and instructed them not to email the Secretary
“anything sensitive” and stated that she could “explain more in person.” 159
Ambassador Gration: Ambassador Gration served as the U.S. Ambassador to Kenya from mid2011 through mid-2012. OIG first publicly reported on the activities of Ambassador Gration as
part of its 2012 inspection of Embassy Nairobi. 160 Prior to the inspection, in June 2011, DS
learned that the newly posted Ambassador had drafted and distributed a revised mission policy
concerning communications security that authorized him and other mission personnel to use
commercial email for daily communication of official government business. That prompted
senior DS management and cybersecurity staff to email the Ambassador to advise him that DS
was dispatching an experienced Regional Computer Security Officer to provide expertise and
159
In another incident occurring on May 13, 2011, two of Secretary Clinton’s immediate staff discussed via email the
Secretary’s concern that someone was “hacking into her email” after she received an email with a suspicious link.
Several hours later, Secretary Clinton received an email from the personal account of then-Under Secretary of State
for Political Affairs that also had a link to a suspect website. The next morning, Secretary Clinton replied to the email
with the following message to the Under Secretary: “Is this really from you? I was worried about opening it!”
Department policy requires employees to report cybersecurity incidents to IRM security officials when any improper
cyber-security practice comes to their attention. 12 FAM 592.4 (January 10, 2007). Notification is required when a user
suspects compromise of, among other things, a personally owned device containing personally identifiable
information. 12 FAM 682.2-6 (August 4, 2008). However, OIG found no evidence that the Secretary or her staff
reported these incidents to computer security personnel or anyone else within the Department.
160
ISP-I-12-38A (August 2012).
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
40
UNCLASSIFIED
advice in establishing procedures for handling SBU information that adhered to Department
standards for the processing of sensitive material. DS further noted that this visit would be
“especially timely in the wake of recent headlines concerning a significant hacking effort
directed against the private, web-based email accounts of dozens of senior USG officials, which
has generated substantial concern from the Secretary, Deputy Secretary Steinberg, and other
Department principals.” Notwithstanding the Department’s concerns, the Ambassador continued
to use commercial email for official business.
DS then notified the Ambassador via cable on July 20, 2011, that the FAM did not permit him to
use non-government email for day-to-day operations. 161 The cable stated in relevant part:
The language in 12 FAM 544.3, which states that “it is the Department's general policy
that normal day-to-day operations be conducted on an authorized [automated
information system]” is purposely included to place employees on notice that if they are
given a tool that provides an adequate level of security encryption, such as an OpenNet
terminal … or any other Department-supplied security mechanism that works in the
given circumstance, they must use it. 12 FAM 544.3 goes on to say that in the absence of
a Department-supplied security solution employees can send most SBU information
unencrypted via the internet only when necessary, with the knowledge that the nature of
the transmission lends itself to unauthorized access, however remote that chance might
be. … Given the threats that have emerged since 2005, especially in regard to phishing
and spoofing of certain web-based email accounts, we cannot allow the proliferation of
this practice beyond maintaining contact during emergencies. We are all working toward
the same end—to protect the availability, integrity and confidentiality of Department
information and systems, while recognizing that emergency situations may arise,
particularly for our employees serving overseas. … The Department is not aware of any
exigent circumstances in Nairobi that would authorize a deviation from the requirement
to use Department systems for official business.
However, the Ambassador continued to use unauthorized systems to conduct official business.
The Department subsequently initiated disciplinary proceedings against him for his failure to
follow these directions and for several other infractions, but he resigned before any disciplinary
measures were imposed.
OIG could find no other instances where the Department initiated disciplinary procedures
against a senior official for using non-Departmental systems for day-to-day operations.
161
11 STATE 73417 (July 20, 2011).
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
41
UNCLASSIFIED
CONCLUSION
Longstanding, systemic weaknesses related to electronic records and communications have
existed within the Office of the Secretary that go well beyond the tenure of any one Secretary of
State. OIG recognizes that technology and Department policy have evolved considerably since
Secretary Albright’s tenure began in 1997. Nevertheless, the Department generally and the
Office of the Secretary in particular have been slow to recognize and to manage effectively the
legal requirements and cybersecurity risks associated with electronic data communications,
particularly as those risks pertain to its most senior leadership. OIG expects that its
recommendations will move the Department steps closer to meaningfully addressing these risks.
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
42
UNCLASSIFIED
RECOMMENDATIONS
To ensure compliance with Federal and Department requirements regarding records
preservation and use of non-Departmental systems, OIG has issued the following
recommendations to the Bureau of Administration, the Office of the Secretary, the Bureau of
Information Resources Management, the Bureau of Human Resources, and the Department’s
Transparency Coordinator. Their complete responses can be found in Appendix B. The Department
also provided technical comments that OIG incorporated as appropriate into this report.
Recommendation 1: The Bureau of Administration should
• continue to issue guidance, including periodic, regular notices, to Department
employees to remind them that the use of personal email accounts to conduct official
business is discouraged in most circumstances,
• clarify and give specific examples of the types of limited circumstances in which such use
would be permissible, and
• instruct employees how to preserve Federal records when using personal email accounts.
Management Response: In its May 23, 2016, response, the Bureau of Administration concurred
with this recommendation. It will continue to issue guidance on records management practices
and policies, and will ensure that this guidance explicitly reminds employees that the use of
personal emails accounts to conduct official business is discouraged.
OIG Reply: OIG considers the recommendation resolved. The recommendation can be closed
when OIG receives and accepts documentation of this additional guidance.
Recommendation 2: The Bureau of Administration should amend the Foreign Affairs Manual to
reflect the updates to Department recordkeeping systems that provide alternatives to print and
file emails that constitute Federal records.
Management Response: In its May 23, 2016, response, the Bureau of Administration concurred
with this recommendation. It noted that it is currently working with the Transparency
Coordinator to update sections of the FAM related to the Department's recordkeeping/retention
schedules, with a goal to eliminate the practice of print and file as the Department's policy for
the retention of emails by December 31, 2016.
OIG Reply: OIG considers the recommendation resolved. The recommendation can be closed
when OIG receives and accepts documentation of the amendment.
Recommendation 3: The Office of the Secretary, Executive Secretariat, should work with the
Office of Information Programs and Services to conduct an inventory of all electronic and hardcopy files in its custody and evaluate them to determine which files should be transferred to the
Office of Information Programs and Services in accordance with records disposition schedules or
Department email preservation requirements.
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
43
UNCLASSIFIED
Management Response: In its May 16, 2016, response, the Executive Secretariat concurred with
this recommendation. It noted that the inventory of electronic and hard copy files has been
ongoing since January 2016 and that once it is complete, the Executive Secretariat will retire all
such records according to applicable records schedules.
OIG Reply: OIG considers the recommendation resolved. The recommendation can be closed
when OIG receives and accepts documentation that this effort has been completed.
Recommendation 4: The Office of the Secretary, Executive Secretariat, should work with the
Office of Information Programs and Services to improve policies and procedures to promote
compliance by all employees within its purview, including the Secretary, with records
management requirements. These policies should cover the retirement of records in accordance
with records disposition schedules, preservation of email and other electronic records of
departing officials, and training of employees on their records preservation responsibilities.
Management Response: In its May 16, 2016, response, the Executive Secretariat concurred with
this recommendation. It noted that it is committed to coordinating closely with the Office of
Information Programs and Services to provide updated guidance and training to all staff.
OIG Reply: OIG considers the recommendation resolved. The recommendation can be closed
when OIG receives and accepts a copy of the policies and procedures.
Recommendation 5: The Office of the Secretary, Executive Secretariat, should work with the
Office of Information Programs and Services to ensure that all departing officials within its
purview, including the Secretary of State, sign a separation form (DS-109) certifying that they
have surrendered all Federal records and classified or administratively controlled documents. In
addition, staff should ensure that all incoming officials within its purview, including the
Secretary, are thoroughly briefed on their records preservation and retention responsibilities,
including records contained on personal email accounts.
Management Response: In its May 16, 2016, response, the Executive Secretariat concurred with
this recommendation. It noted that it is instituting a process whereby completed DS-109 forms
are placed in the employee’s permanent electronic performance files to ensure they are easily
accessible.
OIG Reply: OIG considers the recommendation resolved. The recommendation can be closed
when OIG receives and accepts documentation of this process.
Recommendation 6: The Department’s Transparency Coordinator should work with the Office of
Information Programs and Services to develop a quality assurance plan to promptly identify and
address Department-wide vulnerabilities in the records preservation process, including lack of
oversight and the broad inaccessibility of electronic records.
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
44
UNCLASSIFIED
Management Response: In her May 16, 2016, response, the Transparency Coordinator concurred
with this recommendation. She noted that this plan will be part of her continuing efforts, in
coordination with the Office of Information Programs and Services and the Executive Secretariat,
to improve overall governance of the Department's information, including how it is captured,
stored, shared, disposed of, and archived.
OIG Reply: OIG considers the recommendation resolved. The recommendation can be closed
when OIG receives and accepts a copy of the quality assurance plan.
Recommendation 7: The Bureau of Information Resource Management should
• issue regular notices to remind Department employees of the risks associated with the
use of non-Departmental systems;
• provide periodic briefings on such risks to staff at all levels; and
• evaluate the cost and feasibility of conducting regular audits of computer system usage
to ascertain the degree to which Department employees are following the laws and
policies concerning the use of personal email accounts.
Management Response: In its May 23, 2016, response, the Bureau of Information Resource
Management concurred with this recommendation. It noted that it will continue to issue regular
notices regarding the risks associated with the use of non-Departmental systems. With regard to
the evaluation of the cost and feasibility of regular computer system audits, the Bureau has
considered such an effort but has concluded that audits conducted on such a wide scale would
not be beneficial or feasible, especially because the Department already conducts continuous
monitoring to ensure the integrity of the Department’s networks and systems.
OIG Reply: OIG considers the recommendation resolved. The recommendation can be closed
when OIG receives and accepts documentation of additional educational efforts.
Recommendation 8: The Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of Human
Resources should amend the Foreign Affairs Manual to provide for administrative penalties for
Department employees who (1) fail to comply with recordkeeping laws and regulations or (2) fail
to comply with Department policy that only authorized information systems are to be used to
conduct day-to-day operations. The amendment should include explicit steps employees should
take if a reasonable suspicion exists that documents are not being preserved appropriately,
including a reminder that the Office of Inspector General has jurisdiction to investigate and refer
to appropriate authorities suspected violations of records preservation requirements.
Management Response: In its May 23, 2016, response, the Department concurred with this
recommendation. It will revise the FAM accordingly. The Department also noted that under 3
FAM 4370, it currently has authority to discipline violations of any administrative regulations that
do not provide a penalty.
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
45
UNCLASSIFIED
OIG Reply: OIG considers the recommendation resolved. The recommendation can be closed
when OIG receives and accepts documentation of the revision.
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
46
UNCLASSIFIED
APPENDIX A: RELEVANT LAWS AND POLICIES DURING THE
TENURES OF THE FIVE MOST RECENT SECRETARIES OF STATE
Madeleine Albright (January 23, 1997 – January 20, 2001)
Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) and Foreign Affairs Handbook (FAH) Requirements for Use of
Non-Departmental Systems: Since 1996, the FAM directed Department of State (Department)
systems managers to ensure that privately owned computers were not installed or used in any
Department office building. 1
Applicable Cybersecurity Provisions and Related Guidance: In 1988, Congress enacted the
Computer Security Act to require all Federal agencies to identify computer systems containing
sensitive information, conduct computer security training, and develop computer security plans. 2
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-130 (Appendix III) required Federal
agencies to establish security programs containing specified elements, including development
of a System Security Plan, assignment of responsibility for security to individuals knowledgeable
in information security technology, and regular review of information system security controls.
The FAM did not contain specific computer or cybersecurity provisions.
Statutory and Regulatory Requirements for Email Records Preservation: The Federal Records Act
of 1950 requires the head of every Federal agency to “make and preserve records containing
adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions,
procedures, and essential transactions of the agency.” 3 The agency head is also required to
establish and maintain an active, continuing program for the economical and efficient
management of agency records that provides for:
• Effective controls over the creation and the maintenance and use of records in the
conduct of current business;
• Cooperation with the Archivist in applying standards, procedures, and techniques
designed to improve the management of records, promote the maintenance and security
of records deemed appropriate for preservation, and facilitate the segregation and
disposal of records of temporary value; and
• Compliance with Federal law and regulations.4
As part of this program, the agency head must establish safeguards against the removal or loss
of records, including making it known to agency employees that agency records may not be
1
12 FAM 625.2-1 (April 12, 1996).
2
Pub. L. No. 100-235 (January 8, 1988).
3
44 U.S.C. § 3101.
4
44 U.S.C. § 3102. 44 U.S.C. § 3102(3) specifically references “compliance with sections 2101-2117, 2501-2507, 29012909, and 3101-3107, of this title and the regulations issued under them.”
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
47
UNCLASSIFIED
unlawfully alienated or destroyed and that penalties exist for the unlawful removal or
destruction of records. 5 The agency head must notify the Archivist of any actual, impending, or
threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alteration, corruption, deletion, erasure, or other
destruction of records in the agency’s custody. 6 The Federal Records Act define records broadly as
all books, papers, maps, photographs, machine readable materials, or other documentary
materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by an agency
of the United States Government … or in connection with the transaction of public
business and preserved or appropriate for preservation by that agency or its legitimate
successor as evidence of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures,
operations, or other activities of the Government or because of the informational value
of data in them. 7
The regulations issued by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) in title 36 of
the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) that were in effect during Secretary Albright’s tenure
specified actions that must be taken by an agency in establishing a records program. These
included:
• Assigning an office the responsibility for the development and implementation of
agency-wide programs to identify, develop, issue, and periodically review recordkeeping
requirements for records for all agency activities at all levels and locations in all media
including paper, microform, audiovisual, cartographic, and electronic (including those
created or received using electronic mail);
• Integrating programs for the identification, development, issuance, and periodic review
of recordkeeping requirements with other records and information resources
management programs of the agency;
• Issuing a directive establishing program objectives, responsibilities, and authorities for
agency recordkeeping requirements;
• Establishing procedures for the participation of records management officials in
developing new or revised agency programs, processes, systems, and procedures in
order to ensure that adequate recordkeeping requirements are established and
implemented;
• Ensuring that adequate training is provided to all agency personnel on policies,
responsibilities, and techniques for the implementation of recordkeeping requirements
and the distinction between records and non-record materials, regardless of media,
including those materials created by individuals using computers to send or receive
electronic mail;
5
44 U.S.C. § 3105.
6
44 U.S.C. § 3106.
7
44 U.S.C. § 3301 (amended 2014). The regulations stated that the medium may be “paper, film, disk, or other
physical type or form” and that the method of recording may be “manual, mechanical, photographic, electronic, or
any other combination of these or other technologies.” 36 C.F.R. § 1222.12(b)(2) (1990).
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
48
UNCLASSIFIED
• Developing and implementing records schedules for all records created and received by
the agency;
• Reviewing recordkeeping requirements, as part of the periodic information resources
management reviews; and
• Reminding all employees annually of the agency’s recordkeeping policies and of the
sanctions provided for the unlawful removal or destruction of Federal records. 8
The regulations explicitly noted that “messages created or received on electronic mail systems
may meet the definition of record.” 9 Furthermore, the regulations required agencies to develop
procedures to ensure that departing officials do not remove Federal records from agency
custody. 10 The regulations gave further guidance as to what constitutes a Federal record,
specifying that records are those documents that:
• Document the persons, places, things, or matters dealt with by the agency;
• Facilitate action by agency officials and their successors in office;
• Make possible a proper scrutiny by the Congress or other duly authorized agencies of
the Government;
• Protect the financial, legal, and other rights of the Government and of persons directly
affected by the Government’s actions;
• Document the formulation and execution of basic policies and decisions and the taking of
necessary actions, including all significant decisions and commitments reached orally; or
• Document important board, committee, or staff meetings. 11
The regulations issued by NARA included separate provisions on electronic records
management, including email. 12 The requirements for electronic records management largely
matched those for general records management, but they did require integrating electronic
records management with other records and information resources management and ensuring
that adequate training is provided for users of electronic mail systems on recordkeeping
requirements. 13 The management of email records had to include instructions on preservation of
data regarding transmission, calendar and task lists, and acknowledgements. 14 Agencies were
restricted from storing the recordkeeping copy of email messages solely on the electronic mail
8
36 C.F.R. § 1222.20 (1995).
9
36 C.F.R. § 1222.34(e) (1995). Even prior to the issuance of this provision, emails would have been considered a
Federal record based on the broad definition of “record” in the Federal Records Act. 44 U.S.C. § 3301.
10
36 C.F.R. § 1222.40 (1990). Even for non-records, the regulations permit removal only with the approval of the head
of the agency or the individual authorized to act for the agency on matters pertaining to agency records. 36 C.F.R.
§ 1222.42.
11
36 C.F.R. § 1222.38 (1990).
12
36 C.F.R. part 1234 (1995).
13
36 C.F.R. § 1234.10 (1995).
14
36 C.F.R. § 1234.24(a) (1995).
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
49
UNCLASSIFIED
system, unless the system was able to meet regulatory requirements. 15 If an agency used paper
files as its recordkeeping system, it was required to print email records and the related
transmission and receipt data. 16
The regulations also noted that the use of external communications systems to which an agency
has access, but which are neither owned nor controlled by the agency, does not alter in any way
the agency’s obligation under the Federal Records Act. Specifically, the regulations provided that
agencies with access to external electronic mail systems shall ensure that Federal records
sent or received on these systems are preserved in the appropriate recordkeeping
system and that reasonable steps are taken to capture available transmission and receipt
data needed by the agency for recordkeeping purposes.17
The regulations also focused on the security of electronic records, requiring an effective records
security program that ensures that only authorized personnel have access to electronic records;
provides for backup and recovery of records; ensures that appropriate agency personnel are
trained to safeguard sensitive or classified electronic records; minimizes the risk of unauthorized
alteration or erasure of electronic records; and ensures that electronic records security is
included in computer systems security plans. 18
FAM and FAH Requirements for Email Records Preservation: The FAM largely mirrored the
statutory requirements. It created a Records Management Program headed by the Chief of the
Records Management Branch within the Bureau of Administration (A). 19 The FAM required that
all official files must remain in the custody of the Department and must be maintained in
accordance with the Records Management Handbook, and it prohibited Department employees
from improperly removing, retiring, transferring, or destroying Department records. 20 The FAM
noted that it is the responsibility of all Department employees and contractors to “make and
preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions,
policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the Department.” 21
The FAM emphasized that “all employees must be aware that some of the variety of the
messages being exchanged on E-mail are important to the Department and must be preserved;
such messages are considered Federal records under the law.” 22 It gave examples of emails that
could constitute agency records, such as email providing key substantive comments on a draft
15
36 C.F.R. § 1234.24(b)(2) (1995).
16
36 C.F.R. § 1234.24(d) (1995).
17
36 C.F.R. § 1234.24(a)(4) (1995).
18
36 C.F.R. § 1234.28 (1995).
19
5 FAM 413.1 (October 30, 1995).
20
5 FAM 422.1 (October 30, 1995); 5 FAM 423.1 (October 30, 1995).
21
5 FAM 413.10 (October 30, 1995).
22
5 FAM 443.1(c) (October 30, 1995).
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
50
UNCLASSIFIED
action memorandum; email providing documentation of significant Department decisions and
commitments reached orally; and email conveying information of value on important
Department activities, such as data on significant programs specially compiled by posts in
response to a Department solicitation. 23 The FAM gave instructions on how to preserve email
records, noting that
until technology allowing archival capabilities for long-term electronic storage and
retrieval of E-mail messages is available and installed, those messages warranting
preservation as records (for periods longer than current E-mail systems routinely
maintain them) must be printed out and filed with related records. 24
For departing employees, the FAM gave the administrative section of each office, bureau, or
post the responsibility for reminding all employees who are about to leave the Department or
the Foreign Service of the laws and regulations pertaining to the disposition of personal papers
and official records; seeing that form OF-109, Separation Statement, is executed for each
departing employee and is forwarded to the Office of Personnel for filing in the employee’s
Official Personnel Folder; and advising departing officials ranked Assistant Secretary and above,
or Ambassador, to consult with the Department’s Records Officer about depositing in the
National Archives or a Presidential archival depository papers that they may have accumulated
during their tenure and that may have historical interest. 25 Form OF-109 required the employee
to certify that “I have surrendered to responsible officials all unclassified documents and papers
relating to the official business of the Government acquired by me while in the employ of the
Department.”
Other Preservation Guidance: On February 3, 1997, at the beginning of Secretary Albright’s
tenure, the Office of the Secretary’s Executive Secretary sent a memorandum to all Assistant
Secretaries on “Records Responsibilities and Reviews.” The memorandum referred to a
Department Notice on the subject, as well as the Federal Records Act and 5 FAM 443, which
covered email records. The memorandum stated that information maintained in email may
constitute a record if it meets the statutory definition of a record and stated, “You need not
preserve every e-mail message. If a record in electronic media or electronic mail must be
preserved, print the files or messages and place the paper record in the appropriate official file;
or continue to maintain electronically if feasible.”
On July 28, 2000, a notice reminded all Department employees to preserve emails that qualify as
records, stating that “those messages containing information that documents Departmental
23
5 FAM 443.2(d) (October 30, 1995).
24
5 FAM 443.3 (October 30, 1995). For emails considered records, the FAM required preserving the email message,
any attachments, and transmission data such as sender, addressee, cc’s, and the date and time sent. If the email
system did not print this necessary data, employees were instructed to annotate the printed copies with that data.
25
5 FAM 413.9 (October 30, 1995).
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
51
UNCLASSIFIED
policies, programs, and activities must be preserved in paper form.” It instructed employees to
print out such emails and file them with related paper records.
In August 2000, the Bureau of Administration published a Briefing Booklet for Departing Officials
on “Senior Officials and Government Records” that included a signed letter from the Secretary
stating that records “must be preserved to enhance our national archives and to provide
accurate and complete records.” The Secretary also noted that “we [senior officials] have a
special obligation as the officials who welcomed in a new century and technological era to
preserve e-mail messages as federal records, as appropriate.”
A December 2000 cable to all ambassadors and administrative officers reminded departing
officials to not remove any papers, whether personal or official, from the Department until such
materials have been reviewed to ensure compliance with records laws and regulations.26 It noted
that electronic records must be preserved by printing the files or messages and placing the
paper record in the appropriate official file.
Colin Powell (January 20, 2001 – January 26, 2005)
FAM and FAH Requirements for Use of Non-Departmental Systems: Beginning in December
2002, the FAM required all Department facilities to use the Department’s primary Internet
connection, OpenNet, to establish Internet connectivity. 27 OpenNet provided improved
information management and heightened information security throughout the Department. If a
bureau or post wanted an exception to this policy, it was required to request a waiver. 28
The Department established rules in May 2004 regulating the use of non-government
information systems, called Dedicated Internet Networks (DINs), to access the Internet. 29 A DIN
is a stand-alone information network, such as a local network or server, with dedicated Internet
access provided by a commercial Internet service provider (ISP). DINs were not to be used to
carry out Department business or to transmit sensitive but unclassified (SBU) information. All
bureaus and posts were required to submit a waiver to request an exception in order to use a
commercial Internet connection for a stand-alone local network or server. The request for a
waiver needed to contain detailed information about the network or server, including an
explanation of compliance with Department’s standards and specific reasons why OpenNet did
not meet the requester’s official business requirements. The FAM required all waivers to be
approved by the Department’s Information Technology Change Control Board (IT CCB).30
According to the IT CCB, it approved approximately 180 such waivers during the first year this
provision was in effect.
26
00 STATE 228951.
27
5 FAM 871 (December 30, 2002). At the time, OpenNet was referred to as “OpenNet Plus.”
28
5 FAM 872 (December 30, 2002).
29
5 FAM 874.2 (May 4, 2004).
30
5 FAM 874.2 (May 4, 2004).
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
52
UNCLASSIFIED
Applicable Cybersecurity Provisions and Related Guidance: The E-Government Act, signed into
law in December 2002, recognized the importance of information security to the economic and
national security interests of the United States. Title III of the Act, the Federal Information Security
Management Act (FISMA), gave the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
responsibility to develop Federal Government information security standards and guidelines. 31
Statutory and Regulatory Requirements for Email Records Preservation: The requirements in the
Federal Records Act of 1950 and related regulations in title 36 of the C.F.R. did not change.
FAM and FAH Requirements for Email Records Preservation: The requirements in the FAM
generally had not changed from Secretary Albright’s tenure. However, in 2002, the Department
added a section to the FAM on email usage that included a requirement that email users
“determine the significance and value of information created on e-mail systems [and] determine
the need to preserve those messages that qualify as records.” 32 In 2004, the FAM was amended
to designate the Director of the Office of Information Programs and Services (IPS) as the
Department’s Records Officer. 33 This amendment also noted that “email sent or received as a
Department official is not personal.” 34 Finally, the amendment assigned the responsibilities related
to departing officials, including ensuring the OF-109 was signed, to Management Officers, but
eliminated the requirement that the OF-109 be filed in the employee’s personnel folder. 35
Other Preservation Guidance: On August 9, 2004, the Executive Secretary sent a memorandum
to all Under Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries entitled “Refresher on Records Responsibilities
and Review.” The memorandum stated that:
Departing officials may not remove any documentary materials, whether personal or
official and whether in written or electronic form, from the Department until they have
been reviewed by records and security officers to ensure compliance with records laws
and regulations. … In addition, departing officials must ensure that all record material
they possess is incorporated in the Department's official files. … Finally, the
administrative section of each office and bureau in the Department will ensure that
departing officials receive a mandatory briefing and that all departing officials will
execute a Separation Statement (OF-109) certifying that they have not retained in their
possession classified or administratively controlled documents.
31
E-Government Act of 2002 (Pub. L. No. 107-347), Title III, Information Security, titled Federal Information Security
Management Act of 2002, 116 STAT. 2946 (December 17, 2002). NIST did not promulgate guidance on minimum
security requirements until March 2006.
32
5 FAM 751.4 (February 27, 2002).
33
5 FAM 414.2 (September 17, 2004).
34
5 FAM 415.1 (September 17, 2004).
35
5 FAM 414.7 (September 17, 2004).
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
53
UNCLASSIFIED
In December 2004, NARA issued a bulletin to remind heads of Federal agencies that official
records must remain in the custody of the agency and that they must notify officials and
employees that there are criminal penalties for the unlawful removal or destruction of Federal
records. 36 Employees may remove extra copies of records or other work-related non-record
materials when they leave the agency with the approval of a designated agency official such as
the Records Officer or legal counsel. It also noted that “officials and employees must know how
to ensure that records are incorporated into files or electronic recordkeeping systems, especially
records that were generated electronically on personal computers.” Further, the bulletin stated
that, “in many cases, officials and employees intermingle their personal and official files. In those
cases, the agency may need to review and approve the removal of personal material to ensure
that all agency policies are properly followed.”
A January 2005 cable to all embassies, posts, and offices reminded them of their responsibilities
to preserve records under the Federal Records Act and noted that responsibility for
implementing and administering records policies and procedures is given to the Management
Section of each Department office. 37
Condoleezza Rice (January 26, 2005 – January 20, 2009)
FAM and FAH Requirements for Use of Non-Departmental Systems: In November 2005, the FAM
listed the connection of prohibited hardware or electronic devices to a Department Automated
Information System (AIS) as a cybersecurity violation. 38 In 2007, the Department restated this
provision to prohibit the connection of “unauthorized hardware/electronic devices to
Department networks,” which included non-Department-owned hardware/electronic devices. 39
Also in November 2005, the Department adopted the policy that normal day-to-day Internet
operations are to be conducted on an authorized AIS designed with the proper level of security
control to provide authentication and encryption to ensure confidentiality and integrity for
transmitting Departmental SBU data and information. 40 Employees with a valid business need
may transmit SBU information over the Internet unencrypted so long as they carefully consider
that unencrypted emails can pass through foreign and domestic controlled ISPs, putting the
confidentiality and integrity of the information at risk. The FAM further specified that employees
transmitting SBU information outside the Department’s OpenNet network on a regular basis to
the same non-Departmental email address should obtain a secure technical solution for those
Internet transmissions from the Bureau of Information Resource Management (IRM). 41 The FAM
36
NARA, Protecting Federal records and other documentary materials from unauthorized removal, Bulletin No. 200503 (December 22, 2004).
37
05 STATE 013345 (January 24, 2005).
38
12 FAM 592.2 (November 1, 2005).
39
12 FAM 592.2 (January 10, 2007).
40
12 FAM 544.3 (November 4, 2005).
41
12 FAM 544.2 (November 4, 2005).
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
54
UNCLASSIFIED
noted that SBU information resident on personally owned computers is generally more
susceptible to cyber-attacks and/or compromise than information on government-owned
computers connected to the Internet. 42 All employees who possessed SBU information on
personally owned computers must ensure adequate and appropriate security for the SBU
information. 43
In 2008, the Department amended the FAM to define “remote processing” as the processing of
Department information on non-Department-owned systems at non-Departmental facilities. 44
Offices that allow employees to remotely process SBU information must ensure that appropriate
administrative, technical, and physical safeguards are maintained to protect the confidentiality
and integrity of records. 45 Employees are prohibited from storing or processing SBU information
on non-Department-owned computers unless it is necessary in the performance of their
duties. 46 Employees must (1) ensure that SBU information is encrypted; (2) destroy SBU
information on their personally owned and managed computers and removable media when the
files are no longer required; and (3) when using personally owned computers, implement and
regularly update basic home security controls, including a firewall, anti-spyware, antivirus, and
file-destruction applications, and if those computers are networked, also ensure the same basic
controls, plus NIST-certified encryption, for all computers on the network. 47
Also in 2008, the Department eased the FAM restriction regarding the use or installation of nonFederal-Government-owned computers in any Department facility; such use was now allowed
with the written approval of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) and IRM with certain
exceptions. 48
Applicable Cybersecurity Provisions and Related Guidance: The Department implemented the
Cyber Security Incident Program (CSIP) in November 2005 to improve protection of the
Department’s unclassified/SBU cyber infrastructure by identifying, evaluating, and assigning
responsibility for breaches of cybersecurity. 49 CSIP focused on accountability of personnel for
actions leading to damage or risk to Department information systems and infrastructure, even
when only unclassified material or information is involved. 50 Cybersecurity incidents are defined
as acts against, or failure to protect, the Department’s unclassified cyber infrastructure. 51
42
12 FAM 544.3 (November 4, 2005).
43
12 FAM 544.3 (November 4, 2005).
44
12 FAM 682.1 (August 4, 2008).
45
12 FAM 682.2-4 (August 4, 2008).
46
12 FAM 682.2-4 (August 4, 2008).
47
12 FAM 682.2-5 (August 4, 2008). Although the FAM chapter relating to remote access and processing was
amended in 2009, 2011, 2014, and 2015, these basic requirements did not change.
48
12 FAM 625.2-1 (July 28, 2008).
49
12 FAM 591.1(a) (November 1, 2005).
50
12 FAM 591.1 (November 1, 2005).
51
12 FAM 592 (January 10, 2007).
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
55
UNCLASSIFIED
Reporting cybersecurity incidents is every employee’s responsibility, and each employee must
be familiar with the list of cybersecurity infractions and violations. 52 Employees must inform their
Information Systems Security Office and their Regional or Bureau Security Officer when any
improper cybersecurity practice comes to their attention. 53 Improper security practices include
personnel compromising the confidentiality of sensitive information, deliberate introduction of a
malicious program code, and use of encryption to conceal an unauthorized act, such as the
transfer of SBU information to an unauthorized individual. 54
NIST was tasked with responsibility to develop Federal standards and guidelines to implement
FISMA. NIST responded in February 2004 with Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS)
Publication 199, Standards for Security Categorization of Federal Information and Information
Systems, which established security categories for both information and information systems
that are used in conjunction with vulnerability and threat information for assessing the risk to an
organization. 55 This was followed in March 2006 by FIPS Publication 200, which specified
minimum security requirements for information and information systems supporting Federal
agencies. NIST’s announcement of the publication of FIPS Publication 200 noted
this standard is applicable to: (i) all information within the federal government other than
that information that has been determined pursuant to Executive Order 12958, as
amended by Executive Order 13292, or any predecessor order, or by the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended, to require protection against unauthorized disclosure and is
marked to indicate its classified status; and (ii) all federal information systems other than
those information systems designated as national security systems as defined in [44
U.S.C. § 3552(b)(6)].
Section 3 of FIPS 200 sets forth 17 specifications for minimum security requirements, including
the following:
• The Audit and Accountability specification states: “Organizations must (i) create, protect,
and retain information system audit records to the extent needed to enable the
monitoring, analysis, investigation, and reporting of unlawful, unauthorized, or
inappropriate information system activity; and (ii) ensure that the actions of individual
information system users can be uniquely traced to those users so they can be held
accountable for their actions.”
• The Risk Assessment specification states: “Organizations must periodically assess the risk
to organizational operations (including mission, functions, image, or reputation),
organizational assets, and individuals, resulting from the operation of organizational
52
12 FAM 592.4 (January 10, 2007).
53
12 FAM 592.4 (January 10, 2007).
54
12 FAM 592.1 and 592.2 (January 10, 2007).
55
NIST, FIPS PUB 199: Standards for Security Categorization of Federal Information and Information Systems
(February 2004).
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
56
UNCLASSIFIED
information systems and the associated processing, storage, or transmission of
organizational information.”
• The System and Communications Protection specification states: “Organizations must (i)
monitor, control, and protect organizational communications (i.e., information
transmitted or received by organizational information systems) at the external
boundaries and key internal boundaries of the information systems; and (ii) employ
architectural designs, software development techniques, and systems engineering
principles that promote effective information security within organizational information
systems.
Federal agencies were required to comply with these standards by March 2007. 56
In 2007, the Department adopted rules implementing these FISMA requirements, including the
requirement that non-Departmental information systems that process or store bureausponsored Department information on behalf of the Department maintain a baseline of
minimum security controls to protect Department information and information systems.57 Key
personnel identified to perform certification and accreditation of non-Departmental systems
must not be involved with its development, implementation, or operation, or be under the
sponsoring bureau’s direct management authority.58
DS reported to the Office of Inspector General that, in 2005, the Bureau of Intelligence and
Research (INR) issued guidance permitting BlackBerry devices to be used inside secure areas.
However, in January 2006, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a clear
prohibition on such use, and the INR guidance was immediately rescinded.
Statutory and Regulatory Requirements for Email Records Preservation: The requirements in the
Federal Records Act of 1950 had not changed. The records requirements in title 36 of the C.F.R.
were also largely the same, except that, in 2006, NARA amended the regulations to allow
agencies to store transitory email records (which have minimal or no documentary or evidential
value) on an email system rather than requiring employees to print and file them or store them
in a recordkeeping system, as long as the transitory records are maintained through the
applicable NARA-approved retention period. 59
FAM and FAH Requirements for Email Records Preservation: The requirements in the FAM
generally had not changed. In 2005, the FAM was amended to include a reminder that ”every
Department of State employee must create and preserve records that properly and adequately
56
NIST, FIPS PUB 200: Minimum Security Requirements for Federal Information and Information Systems (March
2006).
57
5 FAM 1065.1-6 (February 22, 2007); 5 FAH-11 H-411.4 (June 25, 2007).
58
5 FAH-11 H-411.5 (June 25, 2007).
59
71 Fed. Reg. 8807 (February 21, 2006) (amending 36 C.F.R. § 1234.24). NARA also amended 36 C.F.R. § 1234.32 to
provide a NARA-approved disposition authority for transitory emails.
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
57
UNCLASSIFIED
document the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions
of the Department.” 60
Other Preservation Guidance: A February 2005 cable drafted by the Bureau of Administration
and sent over the Secretary’s name to all embassies and posts and an announcement to all
employees reminded departing officials not to remove any papers until they have been
reviewed to ensure compliance with records laws and regulations. 61
In December 2005, NARA issued a bulletin that reminded agencies that all electronic records
created and received by agencies are subject to the same existing statutory and regulatory
records management requirements as records in other formats and on other media. 62
A February 2007 cable drafted by the Bureau of Administration and sent over the Secretary’s
name to all embassies and posts and an announcement to all employees were distributed to
remind employees that, until the new State Messaging and Archive Retrieval Toolset (SMART) is
implemented, email, Short Message Service messages, or instant messages that qualify as
records must be printed and filed with related paper records, including any attachments and
transmission data. 63
In April, June, and October 2008, announcements to all employees again reminded departing
employees not to remove any papers until they had been reviewed. They also stated that “e-mail
messages must generally be printed out and filed with related paper records.” 64
On January 15, 2009, the Under Secretary for Management issued a memorandum to all Under
Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries, Executive Directors, and Post Management Officers on
“Preserving Electronically the Email of Senior Officials upon their Departure.” The memorandum
required bureaus to copy the email accounts of senior departing officials onto CDs and deliver
those CDs to IPS. The requirement was applicable to political appointees, not career staff, and
was put in place to supplement the traditional print and file policy for record email.
Hillary Clinton (January 21, 2009 – February 1, 2013)
60
5 FAM 422.3 (October 11, 2005).
61
05 STATE 018818; Department of State, Procedures for the Removal of Personal Papers and Non-Record Material,
Announcement No. 2005_02_017, February 3, 2005.
62
NARA, NARA Guidance for Implementing Section 207(e) of the E-Government Act of 2002, Bulletin No. 2006-02
(December 15, 2005).
63
07 STATE 024044; Department of State, Records Management Procedures, Announcement No. 2007_02_147,
February 28, 2007.
64
Department of State, Departing Officials: Procedures for the Removal of Personal Papers and Non-Record Material,
Announcement No. 2008_04_089, April 17, 2008; Department of State, Reminder – Departing Officials: Procedures for
the Removal of Personal Papers and Non-Record Material, Announcement No. 2008_06_095, June 16, 2008;
Department of State, Reminder – Departing Officials: Procedures for the Removal of Personal Papers and Non-Record
Material, Announcement No. 2008_10_087, October, 16, 2008.
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
58
UNCLASSIFIED
FAM and FAH Requirements for Use of Non-Departmental Systems: A December 2009 FAM
provision states that non-Department-owned personal digital assistants (PDAs) may only be
turned on and used within Department areas that are strictly unclassified (such as the cafeteria)
and may not connect with a Department network except via a Department-approved remoteaccess program. 65
Applicable Cybersecurity Provisions and Related Guidance: To meet the requirements of FISMA,
the Department implemented a mandatory annual requirement for all Department computer
users to take Cybersecurity Awareness training. 66
Beginning in 2009, the Cyber Threat Analysis Division (CTAD) in DS issued regular notices to
Department computer users highlighting cybersecurity threats. CTAD notices addressed
BlackBerry security vulnerabilities, citing this device as a weak link in a computer network. 67
CTAD warned that BlackBerry devices must be configured in accordance with Department
security guidelines.
CTAD’s concerns also included cybersecurity risks faced during international travel. According to
an article posted by CTAD, digital threats begin immediately after landing in a foreign country. A
primary threat is traced to the traveler’s mobile device (BlackBerry or other smart device) which
is necessarily connected to the local cellular tower. This connection gives foreign entities the
opportunity to intercept voice and email transmissions immediately after the traveler arrives
overseas. 68
The E-Government Act and NIST FIPS PUB 200 were unchanged.
Statutory and Regulatory Requirements for Email Records Preservation: The requirements in the
Federal Records Act of 1950 had not changed. In October 2009, NARA published a final rule that
revised and reorganized its records management regulations. 69 The existing requirements were
largely retained, but renumbered. 70 New responsibilities were added to agencies’ records
program duties, including assigning records management responsibilities in each
program/mission to ensure incorporation of recordkeeping requirements into agency
65
12 FAM 683.2-3 (December 2, 2009).
66
13 FAM 331 (December 22, 2010).
67
CTAD, Security Checklist (December 15, 2009); CTAD, Cyber Security Awareness (March 3, 2011).
68
How to manage cybersecurity risks of international travel (September 15, 2010) by (ISC)2 Government Advisory
Board Executive Writers Bureau (posted by CTAD on January 26, 2011).
69
74 Fed. Reg. 51004 (Oct 2, 2009).
70
For example, the requirements of an agency records program were moved from 36 C.F.R. § 1222.20 to 36 C.F.R. §§
1220.30, 1220.32, and 1220.34. Requirements regarding departing officials were moved from 36 C.F.R. §§ 1222.40,
1222.42 to 36 C.F.R. §§ 1222.18, 1222.24(a)(6).
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
59
UNCLASSIFIED
programs. 71 The new section on managing email records required preservation of email
attachments that are an integral part of the record. 72 It also stated:
Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages
using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or
received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping
system. 73
FAM and FAH Requirements for Email Records Preservation: The requirements in the FAM and
FAH generally had not changed.
Other Preservation Guidance: In June 2009, the Department sent an announcement regarding
preservation of email messages.74 It reminded employees of the requirement to preserve email
records, citing the FAM and C.F.R. provisions, and noted that, until SMART becomes available,
employees must print and file emails that are Federal records.
In November 2009, the Department sent a cable to all embassies and posts and an
announcement to all employees reminding them that all Department employees have records
management responsibilities. 75 It noted that Federal records can be found “in any media
including e-mail, instant messages, social media, etc.”
On November 28, 2011, President Obama issued a memorandum to the heads of executive
departments and agencies requiring them to submit a report to the Archivist and the Director of
OMB that
(i) describes the agency’s current plans for improving or maintaining its records
management program, particularly with respect to managing electronic records,
including email and social media, deploying cloud based services or storage solutions,
and meeting other records challenges; (ii) identifies any provisions, or omissions, in
relevant statutes, regulations, or official NARA guidance that currently pose an obstacle
to the agency’s adoption of sound, cost effective records management policies and
practices; and (iii) identifies policies or programs that, if included in the Records
Management Directive required by section 3 of this memorandum or adopted or
implemented by NARA, would assist the agency’s efforts to improve records
management. 76
71
36 C.F.R. § 1220.34 (2010).
72
36 C.F.R. § 1236.22(a)(2) (2010).
73
36 C.F.R. § 1236.22(b) (2010).
74
Department of State, Preserving Electronic Message (E-mail) Records, Announcement No. 2009_06_090, June 17,
2009.
75
09 STATE 120561; Department of State, Records Management Responsibilities, Announcement No. 2009_11_125,
November 23, 2009.
76
Presidential Memorandum – Managing Government Records (November 28, 2011).
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
60
UNCLASSIFIED
In August 2012, OMB and NARA issued a memorandum to the heads of executive departments,
agencies, and independent agencies in part directing agencies to eliminate paper and use
electronic recordkeeping. Per this memorandum, agencies will be required to manage all email
records in an electronic format by December 31, 2016. 77
John Kerry (February 1, 2013 – Present)
FAM and FAH Requirements for Use of Non-Departmental Systems: On May 1, 2014, the
Department amended the definition of a DIN to require the DIN to be on a Department-owned
and operated discrete non-sensitive unclassified local area network that is not connected to any
other Department system. 78 In addition, the domestic approving authority for a DIN changed
from the Department’s IT CCB to the relevant bureau’s Executive Director or equivalent. 79
A September 2014 FAH provision stated that supervisors must exercise “particular care and
judgment” in allowing users to remotely process SBU information and must advise users that all
non-Department-owned storage media containing Department SBU information must be
encrypted with products certified by NIST. 80 Employees were prohibited from remotely
processing classified or SBU/NOFORN (not releasable to foreign nationals) information. 81
Employees were also required to (1) exercise “particular care and judgment” in remotely
processing SBU information; (2) destroy SBU files saved on personally owned and managed
information systems and removable media when the files are no longer required; and (3)
implement and regularly update basic home security controls, including a firewall, anti-spyware,
antivirus, and file-destruction applications. If an employee used a networked personally owned
information system, he or she had to ensure that all information systems on the network
implemented these security requirements.
The FAH further prohibits the installation of non-Departmental information systems within
Department facilities without the written authorization of DS and IRM. 82 This provision replaced
an identical FAM provision issued in 2008.
In 2015, a new FAH provision was added regarding non-Department-owned mobile devices. The
FAH provision included a rule requiring a 10-foot separation between a PDA and classified
processing equipment, a ban on connecting to a Department network except via a Department77
Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies and Independent Agencies: Managing
Government Records Directive, M-12-18 (August 24, 2012).
78
5 FAM 872 (May 1, 2014).
79
5 FAM 872.1 (May 1, 2014).
80
12 FAH-10 H-172.1 (September 25, 2014). These provisions are currently located at 12 FAH-10 H-173.1 (January 11,
2016).
81
12 FAH-10 H-172.4 (September 25, 2014). These provisions are currently located at 12 FAH-10 H-173.4 (January 11,
2016).
82
12 FAH-10 H-112.14-2 (September 19, 2014).
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
61
UNCLASSIFIED
approved remote-access program, and a requirement to conduct normal day-to-day
Department operations on a Department information system because it has the proper security
controls to protect Department information. 83
Applicable Cybersecurity Provisions and Related Guidance: The Federal Information Security
Modernization Act of 2014, enacted in December 2014, updated FISMA by clarifying the roles of
OMB and the Department of Homeland Security, improving security by moving away from
paperwork requirements, and making improvements in the way that Federal data breaches are
managed and reported. 84 Rules and guidance governing cybersecurity threats have not
changed.
Statutory and Regulatory Requirements for Email Records Preservation: In 2014, Congress
enacted the Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014, which amended several
sections of the Federal Records Act. 85 It simplified the definition of record to:
all recorded information, regardless of form or characteristics, made or received by a
Federal agency under Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public
business and preserved or appropriate for preservation by that agency or its legitimate
successor as evidence of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures,
operations, or other activities of the United States Government or because of the
informational value of data in them… 86
The Act noted that the definition of “recorded information” includes “information created,
manipulated, communicated, or stored in digital or electronic form.” The Act also added a
provision that prohibited agency employees from creating or sending a record from a nonofficial electronic messaging account unless they copy their official electronic messaging
account in the original creation or transmission of the record or forward a complete copy of the
record to their official electronic messaging account within 20 days. 87
The requirements in title 36 of the C.F.R. had not changed.
FAM and FAH Requirements for Email Records Preservation: The requirements in the FAM
generally had not changed. However, in October 2014, the Department issued an interim
directive superseding some of the FAM requirements. 88 The directive noted that employees may
delete personal emails, but that “the only e-mails that are personal or non-record are those that
83
12 FAH-10 H-165.4 (May 20, 2015).
84
Pub. L. No. 113-283 (December 18, 2014).
85
Pub. L. No. 113-187 (November 26, 2014).
86
44 U.S.C. § 3301(a).
87
44 U.S.C. § 2911(a).
88
Department of State, A Message from Under Secretary for Management Patrick F. Kennedy regarding State
Department Records Responsibilities and Policy, Announcement No. 2014_10_115, October 17, 2014.
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
62
UNCLASSIFIED
do not relate to or affect the transaction of Government business.” The directive also noted that
departing employees may only take personal papers and non-record materials, subject to review
by records officials. It reminded employees that “all federal records generated by employees,
including senior officials, belong to the Department of State.” Finally, the directive stated that:
employees generally should not use private e-mail accounts (e.g., Gmail, AOL, Yahoo,
etc.) for official business. However, in those very limited circumstances when it becomes
necessary to do so, the email messages covering official business sent from or received
in a personal account must be captured and preserved in one of the Department's
official electronic records systems. The best way for employees to ensure this is to
forward e-mail messages from a private account to their respective State account. Private
email accounts should not be used for classified information.
In October 2015, the Department updated the FAM to incorporate these requirements. 89
The responsibilities of Management Officers related to departing employees have not changed
since Secretary Powell‘s tenure; however, in 2015, the Department changed the name of the
separation form from OF-109 to DS-109. The pertinent language in the form did not change. 90
Other Preservation Guidance: In February 2013, the Department sent an announcement to all
employees reminding senior officials that they may only take personal papers and non-record
materials following a review by a records official to ensure compliance with Federal records laws
and regulations.91
In August 2013, NARA published a bulletin authorizing agencies to use a “Capstone” approach
to managing email records, in lieu of print and file. 92 The Capstone approach allows for the
automatic capture of records that should be preserved as permanent from the accounts of
officials at or near the top of an agency or an organizational subcomponent. In September 2013,
NARA published a bulletin that stated that, “while agency employees should not generally use
personal email accounts to conduct official agency business, there may be times when agencies
authorize the use of personal email accounts.” In these cases, “agency employees must ensure
that all Federal records sent or received on personal email systems are captured and managed in
89
5 FAM 443.7 (October 23, 2015).
90
5 FAM 414.7 (June 19, 2015).
91
Department of State, Departing Senior Officials: Government Records and Personal Papers, Announcement No.
2013_02_122, February 26, 2013.
92
NARA, Guidance on a New Approach to Managing Email Records, Bulletin No. 2013-02 (August 29, 2013). In 2014,
NARA and OMB issued guidance on managing emails to be used in conjunction with NARA’s Capstone guidance.
Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies and Independent Agencies: Guidance on
Managing Email, M-14-16 (September 15, 2014).
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
63
UNCLASSIFIED
accordance with agency recordkeeping practices.” 93 In 2015, NARA issued guidance on
managing other forms of electronic messaging, including social media and texts. 94
On August 28, 2014, the Under Secretary for Management sent a memorandum to the Office of
the Secretary, all Under Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries, and a number of other offices to
remind them of their responsibility for creating, managing, and preserving records “regardless of
physical format or media.” It noted that “records may exist in many formats, including Instant
Messages (IM) and records on mobile devices like BlackBerrys, mobile phones, and iPads.” It also
included specific requirements relating to emails, including:
• At no time during designated senior officials’ tenure will their e-mail accounts be cleared,
deleted, or wiped for any reason.
• While senior officials may delete personal e-mails, they should be aware that the
definition of a personal e-mail is very narrow. The only e-mails that are personal are
those that do not relate to or affect the transaction of Government business.
• As a general matter, to ensure a complete record of their activities, senior officials should
not use their private e-mail accounts (e.g., Gmail) for official business. If a senior official
uses his or her private email account for the conduct of official business, she or he must
ensure that records pertaining to official business that are sent from or received on such
e-mail account are captured and maintained. The best way to ensure this is to forward
incoming emails received on a private account to the senior official’s State account and
copy outgoing messages to their State account. 95
93
NARA, Guidance for agency employees on the management of Federal records, including email accounts, and the
protection of Federal records from unauthorized removal, Bulletin No. 2013-03 (September 9, 2013).
94
NARA, Guidance on Managing Electronic Messages, Bulletin No. 2015-02 (July 29, 2015).
95
The Under Secretary sent this same message to all Chiefs of Mission in September 2014. 14 STATE 111506
(September 15, 2014).
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
64
UNCLASSIFIED
APPENDIX B: MANAGEMENT RESPONSES
UNCLASSIFIED
TO:
Inspector General- Steve Linick
FROM:
Transparency Coordinator- Janice L. Jacob~ ~
SUBJECT: OIG Draft Report- "Office of the Secretary: Evaluation of Email
Records Management and Cybersecurity Requirements (ESP-16-03): Responses
to Recommendations
In March 2015, Secretary Kerry asked the Office of the Inspector General to
review the Department's efforts to preserve a full and complete record of
American foreign policy, and our procedures for making that record available to
the American public. We welcome the opportunity to respond to your report,
Office ofthe Secretary: Evaluation ofEmail Records Management and
Cybersecurity Requirements, the fourth installment of your review. As your
reports recognize, through our work with your office, as well as the Department's
efforts to meet Presidential and Department directives, we have made great
progress towards a better preserved and more accessible public record. As
demonstrated in the enclosed responses and comments to your specific
recommendations, the Department is committed to continuing to improve.
However, I also want to acknowledge and highlight how far we have already come.
For decades, the government has been working to adapt longstanding
recordkeeping principles and rules to the email-dominated modem era. The
Federal Records Act and the Freedom of Information Act are established pillars of
transparent government, but email and other communications technologies create
difficult challenges for implementation. As your report describes, over the years
the Department has been good at drafting principles on the importance of
preserving email; however, only recently have we begun to match results with our
aspirations. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) has
acknowledged that the entire federal government-not just the State Departmentcontinues to grapple with these challenges. In fact, NARA has issued some of its
most relevant guidance regarding these matters in the last three years.
Today, I can attest to the Department's goal of leading on these issues in the
future. Earlier this year, Secretary Kerry issued a Department-wide notice on the
critical importance of the Freedom oflnformation Act, demonstrating a
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
65
UNCLASSIFIED
commitment to transparency at the most senior level. In September 2015,
Secretary Kerry announced my appointment as the Department's Transparency
Coordinator to oversee the Department's efforts on these matters. At the time, the
Department was already engaged in a process to meet the President's Managing
Government Records directive, including through the robust work of our Electronic
Records Management Working Group. We are on track to meet the benchmarks of
the President's directive for 2016; for example, your report notes that the
Department is in the process of procuring new technology to manage emails
electronically.
In addition, in 2014 the Department issued guidance on the use of personal
emails-in effect anticipating later changes to the Federal Records Act-and
initiated the Department's implementation of the Capstone program in February
2015 to archive automatically senior officials' emails. Over 200 officials are
already covered by Capstone, with more on the way. We also have already closed
a number of the recommendations in your first three reports.
Finally, the Executive Secretariat, Bureau of Administration, and other
relevant bureaus have established a strong working relationship to improve records
management. We are already cataloguing our current holdings of electronic
archives, improving the way we search email records, and establishing procedures
for archiving records going forward.
As a result of these and other efforts, today the Department is much
differently situated than during historical periods described in your report. It is
clear that the Department could have done better at preserving emails of
Secretaries of State and their senior staff going back several administrations.
However, by early 2015, the Department had already taken important steps to
address these issues. As noted above, our Electronic Records Management
Working Group was already established. In addition, the Department had already
received Secretary Clinton's emails and undertook to release over 30,000 of them
to the public. The National Archives and Records Administration concluded that
our efforts with respect to Secretary Clinton and her senior staff mitigated past
problems, as has a federal district court in a suit brought under the Federal Records
Act. As you note in the report, you concur with this conclusion.
The way we conduct diplomacy has evolved significantly in recent years
from a time when official cables were one of the primary ways we communicated.
Modem technology has unquestionably enhanced our mission; however, there is
still work to do to ensure that we preserve a record of our work. We look forward
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
66
UNCLASSIFIED
to working with your office in the future on these issues, and remain committed to
building on what we have already accomplished.
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
67
UNCLASSIFIED
May 23, 201 6
UNCLASSIFIED
TO:
Inspector General - Steve Linick
FROM:
M - Patrick Kennedy
SUBJECT: Draft report - " Office of the Secretary: Evaluation of Email Records
Management and Cybersccurity Requirements" (ESP-16-03 dated May 2016)
Thank you for the opportunity to conunent on subject draft report. Over the past
year, the Department has taken steps to improve its records management practices
and we believe we have made progress. However, more progress can be made, and
we arc committed to reaching the December 2016 goal set by NARA for email
retention and continue advancing sound records management.
Responses to recommendations from bureaus within the M family follow below.
Recommendation 1: The Bureau of Administration should
• issue guidance, including periodic, regular notices, to Department employees to
remind them that the use of personal email accounts to conduct official business
is discouraged in most circumstances,
• clarify and give specific examples of the types of limited circumstances in
which such use would be pennissible, and
• instruct employees how to preserve Federal records when using personal email
accounts.
Department Response: The Bureau of Administration concurs with this
recommendation and will continue to issue guidance on records management
practices and policies, and will ensure that this guidance explicitly reminds
employees that the use of personal emails accounts to conduct official business
is discouraged. Similar to previous records management guidance, s uch
guidance will be provided to employees in writing (via Department Notices and
ALDACs) and in appropriate briefings (i.e. training courses, meetings, etc.) to
remind employees of their responsibility for preserving documentation of
official activities, including emails. The Department will consider additional
means by which lo inform employees of records management requirements and
best practices.
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
68
UNCLASSIFIED
Recommendation 2: The Bureau of Administration should amend the Foreign
Affairs Manual to reflect the updates to Department recordkeeping systems that
provide alternatives to print and fi le.
Department Response: We concur with this reconunendation, but please
edit to read "alternatives to print and file emails that are records."
The Durcau of Administration is currently working with the Office of the
Transparency Coordinator to update 5 FAM and chapter subparts related to
Department's recordkeeping/retention schedules. The goal to eliminate the
practice of print and file as the Department' s policy and practice for the
retention of emails by December 31 , 2016, which is also the deadline by
which the Department is supposed to implement a solution to manage all
emails. All other electronic documents should follow this electronic
retention practice by the end of 2019.
Recommendation 7: The Bureau oflnfonnation Resource Management (IRM)
should
• issue regular notices to remind Department employees of the risks associated
with the use of non-Departmental system s;
• provide pe1iodic briefings on such risks to staff at all levels; and
• evaluate the cost and feasibility of conducting regular audits of computer
system usage to ascertain the degree to which Department employees are
following U1e laws and policies concerning the use of personal email accounts.
Department Response: The Department concurs willi the fi.rst two bullet
points of this recommendation. IRM will continue lo issue regular notices
regarding the risks associated with the use of non-Departmental systems.
Regarding the third bullet, audits conducted on such a wide scale would not
be beneficial or feasible. Limited use of personal email is acceptable tmder
current policy and allowable under law. The Department already conducts
continuous monitoring to ensure the integrity of the Department networks
and systems and in fact was a government leader in this regard. State 's
Continuous Diagnostics and Monitoring which is also known as iPost has
been adopted and modified by DHS into the new government-wide
Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation program (COM). Under 5 FAM
724, the Department can audit an employee's network activity or workstation
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
69
UNCLASSIFIED
use, vvhich includes but is not limited to electronic communication, Internet
access, local disk files, and server files when there is suspicion that improper
use of government equipment has occurred. In addition, Infomrnlion
Systems Security Officers (ISSOs) worldwide are required lo review
systems and security logs on a regular basis.
Regarding the first bullet point, the Bureau of Jnfonnation Resource
Management continues to issue notices and provide briefings on risks
associated vv'ith the use of non-Departmental systems. For example:
• Mandatory PS 800 Cyber Security Awareness Training course
• Infomrntional links
o https://intranet.ds.state.sbu/DS/SI/CS/Awareness I /Content/Ema il.a
§Illi for email, or
o one level higher for other types of awareness infonnation
• Department Notices (recent)
o 2016_03_ 128 Global Cyber Foreign Policy Training Workshop on
April 25-29, 20 16
o 2016 02 03 5 Revised 12 FAM 620 and New 12 FAH-10
(Unclassified Cyber Security Policies) arc published
o 2015_1 1_063 October was National Cyber Security Awareness
Month
• IT C ustomer Service Bulletins (e.g., 7/30/15) and also Infomrnlion
Announcements on
http://im1.m.state.sbu/sites/ops/CSO/ITSC/default.aspx
• DS Cybersecurity Awareness ln Case You Missed 1t
• Cyber Security Awareness month - October
• Tips of the Day
o Tips of the Day and StateNet advertisement on Protecting SEU
Outside the Department and Protecting P ersonal Email Accounts
• Fact Sheet on ProtectinR Personal Email Accounts
• Fact Sheet on !low to Handle Suspicious Email (including personal
email)
• Fact Sheet on Ema il Safety
• Personal Email Securitv Best Practices guide
• Jlow to Report Suspicious Messages/Activity on Webmail Accounts
guide
• N otes blast emails on Personal E mail Addresses, Personal Email
Reminder, How lo Handle Suspicious Email, Sending SBU Over the
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
70
UNCLASSIFIED
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Internet, Cloud Computing, Cloud Securitv, Protecting OpenNet When
Accessing Personal Email Accow1ts
Awareness Bulletin on Personal Email Accounts and Out of Office
Messages
Personal Email Guides (Gmail, IIolmail, Yahoo, Outlook)
Infom1ation Systems Security Officer (ISSO) Role-Based Training mandatory for ISSOs
J\-100 Foreign Service Generalist class - general overview
IRM Tradecraft
o YW3 l 9 - IRM Tradecraft for the Infonnation Technology
Manager
o YW387 - lnfom1ation Resources Management Tradecraft
Diplomatic Security Training Center (DSTC) summary:
o For FY 20 15 DSTC conducted 80 course sessions in different
cybersecurity areas (including those for ISSOs)
o For FY-2016, DSTC has scheduled 81 different cybersecurity
courses
Ambassador/PO and DCM seminars - overview
We will review whether the material in these notices and courses needs to be
updated or expanded.
Recommendation 8 : The Director General of U1e Foreign Service and Director of
Human Resources should amend the Foreign Affairs Manual to provide for
administrative penalties for Department employees who ( I ) fail to comply with
rccordkecping laws and regulations or (2) fail to comply with the requirement that
only authorized infonnation systems are lo be used to conduct day-to-day
operations. The amendment should include explicit steps employees should take if
a reasonable suspicion exists that docmnents are not being preserved appropriately,
including a reminder U1at the Office of Inspector General has jurisdiction to
investigate and refer to appropriate authorities suspected violations of records
preservation requirements.
Department Response: The Department concurs with this recommendation
and will implement it by revising, following any appropriate consultation
with the unions, the lists of disciplinary offenses contained at 3 FAM 4377
and 4542 to include explicitly violations of laws, regulations and directives
regarding records management, including preservation. (At present, such
offenses would fall into general catch-all provisions contained in each list.)
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
71
UNCLASSIFIED
WiU1 respect to ilie second sentence of Recommendation 8, as part of its
continuing issuance of records guidance, ilie Bureau of Administration, in
coordination with the Bureau of Human Resources, will include guidance on
how and where to raise records management concerns. Such guidance will
remind employees of the jurisdiction of ilie Office of Inspector General.
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
72
UNCLASSIFIED
United States Department of State
Washington, D.C. 20520
May 16, 2016
UNCLASSIFIED
TO:
Steve Linick, Inspector General
FROM:
Joseph E. Macmanus, Executive Sec
SUBJECT:
Response to Draft OIG Review of Em
ords Management
and Cybersecurity Requirements Involving the Office of the
Secretary
The Executive Secretariat thanks the OIG for the opportunity to respond to this
review. The Secretariat values the OIG's study of electronic records managementa Department-wide challenge that we will continue to address. The Secretariat has
the following specific responses to the recommendations contained in the report.
Recommendation 3: The Office of the Secretary, Executive Secretariat, should
work with the Office of Information Programs and Services to conduct an
inventory of all electronic and hard-copy files in its custody and evaluate them to
determine which files should be transferred to the Office of Information Programs
and Services in accordance with records disposition schedules or Department email
preservation requirements.
Department Response: The Executive Secretariat agrees with this
recommendation and notes that the inventory of electronic and hard copy
files has been ongoing since January 2016. The Executive Secretariat agrees
this is an important and necessary project.
Recommendation 4: The Office of the Secretary, Executive Secretariat, should
work with the Office of Information Programs and Services to adopt policies and
procedures to ensure compliance by all employees within its purview, including
the Secretary, with records management requirements. These policies should
cover the retirement of records in accordance with records disposition schedules,
preservation of email and other electronic records of departing officials, and
training of employees in their records preservation responsibilities.
UNCLASSIFIED
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
73
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
- 2Department Response: The Executive Secretariat strongly agrees with the
OIG recommendation that it should work closely with the Office of
Information Programs and Services to fully implement policies and
procedures to improve compliance with records management
responsibilities, including the retirement of records in accordance with
records disposition schedules, preservation of email and other electronic
records of departing officials, and training of employees on their records
preservation responsibilities. The Executive Secretariat staff is committed to
coordinating closely with the Office of Information Programs and Services
to provide updated guidance and training to all staff.
Recommendation 5: The Office of the Secretary, Executive Secretariat, should
work with the Office oflnformation Programs and Services to ensure that all
departing officials within its purview, including the Secretary of State, sign a
separation form (DS-109) certifying that they have surrendered all Federal records
and classified or administratively controlled documents. In addition, staff should
ensure that all incoming officials within its purview, including the Secretary,
clearly understand their records preservation and retention responsibilities,
including records contained on personal email accounts.
Department Response: The Executive Secretariat agrees with the OIG
recommendation that it should ensure all departing officials within its
purview, including the Secretary of State, sign a separation agreement form
(DS- 109), and that all incoming staff clearly understand their records
preservation and retention responsibilities. The Executive Secretariat is
instituting a process whereby employees' completed DS-109 forms are
placed in their permanent electronic performance files (eOPF) to ensure they
easily accessible.
UNCLASSIFIED
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
74
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
TO:
Inspector General - Steve Linick
FROM:
Transparency Coordinator - Janice L. Jacobs%
SUBJECT: Draft report - "Office of the Secretary: Evaluation of Email Records
Management and Cybersecurity Requirements" (ESP- 16-03 dated May 2016)
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on subject draft report, which includes
the following recommendation:
"The Department's Transparency Coordinator should work with the Office of
Information Programs and Services to develop a quality assurance plan to promptly
identify and address Department-wide vulnerabilities in the records preservation
process, including lack of oversight and the broad inaccessibility of electronic
records."
I concur and am happy to comply with your recommendation as part of my
continuing efforts, in coordination with the Office of Information Programs and
Services (NGIS/IPS) and the Executive Secretariat (S/ES), to improve overall
governance of the Department's information- how it is captured, stored, shared,
disposed of, and archived as appropriate. Your findings will help inform these
efforts. The report's focus on email records is particularly relevant given that all
federal agencies have been directed by the White House and the National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA) to manage all email records in an electronic
format by December 31 of this year. Department progress towards this goal is well
underway with measures either already in place or on the horizon. The Capstone
program mentioned in your report, whereby the emails of designated senior
officials are all captured and retained permanently, is one such step already taken
by the Department.
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
75
UNCLASSIFIED
By December 2019, all permanent electronic records in federal agencies must be
managed electronically to the fullest extent possible. This will be a huge
undertaking requiring a governance structure for all forms of information created
or received by the Department. The Department is committed to getting this right
to help assure a 21 51 century enterprise-wide information management system that
advances the Department's goals of increased efficiency, transparency and
accountability. We will not succeed without sufficient metrics, quality controls,
and general oversight of the system we create. This is why the quality assurance
plan you've recommended is so important.
As I move forward, I remain mindful of Secretary Kerry's strong commitment to
improving the Department's records management and transparency systems in
order to preserve the record of U.S. foreign policy and to share that story with the
wider public.
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
76
UNCLASSIFIED
ABBREVIATIONS
A
Bureau of Administration
AIS
Automated Information System
C.F.R.
Code of Federal Regulations
CIO
Chief Information Officer
CSIP
Cyber Security Incident Program
CTAD
Cyber Threat Analysis Division
D-MR
Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources
DCIO
Deputy Chief Information Officer
Department Department of State
DIN
Dedicated Internet Network
DS
Bureau of Diplomatic Security
ERMWG
Electronic Records Management Working Group
FAH
Foreign Affairs Handbook
FAM
Foreign Affairs Manual
FIPS
Federal Information Processing Standards
FISMA
Federal Information Security Management Act
FOIA
Freedom of Information Act
GAO
Government Accountability Office
INR
Bureau of Intelligence and Research
IPS
Office of Information Programs and Services
IRM
Bureau of Information Resource Management
ISP
Internet service provider
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
77
UNCLASSIFIED
IT CCB
Information Technology Change Control Board
L
Office of the Legal Adviser
M
Under Secretary for Management
NARA
National Archives and Records Administration
NIST
National Institute of Standards and Technology
NOFORN
not releasable to foreign nationals
OIG
Office of Inspector General
OMB
Office of Management and Budget
PDA
personal digital assistant
.pst
Personal Storage Table (Microsoft Outlook file format)
S
Office of the Secretary
S/ES
Office of the Secretary, Executive Secretariat
S/ES-EX
Office of the Executive Director, S/ES
S/ES-IRM
Office of Information Resources Management, S/ES
SAO
Senior Agency Official
SBU
sensitive but unclassified
SMART
State Messaging and Archive Retrieval Toolset
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
78
UNCLASSIFIED
OIG TEAM MEMBERS
Jennifer L. Costello, Team Leader, Office of Evaluations and Special Projects
David Z. Seide, Team Leader, Office of Evaluations and Special Projects
Jeffrey McDermott, Office of Evaluations and Special Projects
Robert Lovely, Office of Evaluations and Special Projects
Michael Bosserdet, Office of Inspections
Brett Fegley, Office of Inspections
Kristene McMinn, Office of Inspections
Timothy Williams, Office of Inspections
Aaron Leonard, Office of Audits
Phillip Ropella, Office of Audits
Kelly Minghella, Office of Investigations
Eric Myers, Office of Investigations
ESP-16-03
UNCLASSIFIED
79
UNCLASSIFIED
HELP FIGHT
FRAUD. WASTE. ABUSE.
1-800-409-9926
OIG.state.gov/HOTLINE
If you fear reprisal, contact the
OIG Whistleblower Ombudsman to learn more about your rights:
OIGWPEAOmbuds@state.gov
oig.state.gov
Office of Inspector General • U.S. Department of State • P.O. Box 9778 • Arlington, VA 22219
UNCLASSIFIED